Post-Trump path to a whole new vision

To be honest, I was as disappointed as my liberal brothers and sisters at Trump’s victory. Equally disappointing, though, is that most liberals seem to have gotten exactly the wrong message.

2016 should have been a cakewalk for liberals. A civil war raged within Republican ranks between the old guard and the alt-right. The demographics of the U.S. population was growing less favorable for Republicans every year, and Obama had won two straight victories. Add Trump’s unlikely candidacy, and many wondered if the Republican Party would survive the next few years.

What went wrong? Surely, the 24/7 right-wing propaganda machine from talk radio and Fox News had some impact, but we had known their impact for years and Republicans still seemed on the ropes. So the real question is, how did liberals alienate so many people that they could not close what should have been a done deal? I believe a large part of it is liberalism’s self-inflicted wounds in the culture wars – “self-inflicted” because conservatives never had and still don’t have any credible vision of social harmony for white, black, male, female, gay, etc., people. Liberals had easy dibs on the moral high ground, but chose another path, a path that eschewed the traditional liberal principle of “shared humanness” as the cornerstone of race and gender analytics and opted for “us vs. them” models of identity politics.

This abdication of the moral high ground directly or indirectly alienated many people who might otherwise have been progressives. To make this as politically incorrect as possible, I think a lot of the blame (I offer this as a hypothesis and not as a fixed conclusion) may go to those Women’s Studies, Black Studies, etc., departments that have mushroomed in recent decades. No doubt, these departments emerged in response to real inequities and problems with representation, and I myself have known some good and noble faculty members in those departments. But then came the unintended consequences. Suddenly, they had a captive audience (required and recommended courses) to force-feed whatever the theories of the day were. And since they were now institutional structures with annual funding to protect, it became easy to reify “blackness” or “femaleness” into an absolute, perpetually at odds with the outside demographic (white male), in need of perpetual funding. And this funding is further secured in perpetuity if you jettison the old liberal tenet of “shared humanness” and play up your demographic (black, female, etc.) as the defining attribute of identity. Once the institutional structures were in place, it was inevitable that divisive theories would replace the old unifying approaches to racial and gender issues that we once saw in Mary Wollstonecraft and Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King and Gandhi and Mandela.

It was a terrible time for the left to crack – 2016 – a year when they should have flourished and when the cost of failure was a Trump presidency. That they were unable to thwart Trump indicates just how far the university re-education committees had alienated non-aligned moderates, many of whom were no doubt sick of political correctness, with its ever-growing repertoire of what we cannot say, do, or think, based on our demographic identity, and with its scarlet-lettering of any dissenter as racist, sexist, or xenophobic. If election pundits are to be trusted, white males were particularly affected, both those who were subjected to the forced re-education regimes in universities and those working-class whites who had worked hard all their lives, had now fallen on hard times, and felt they were being told daily by college liberals and HuffPo editors that they should shut up, sit down, and appreciate how privileged they were. This is no way to win people over. Many of these college kids and working class whites could easily have become progressives if progressives had not gone to such extremes to alienate them.

Oddly (or perhaps predictably, given the egocentrism of the human condition), most of my liberal friends seem to have gotten exactly the wrong message. The correct message, I should think, was that expressed in John McWhorter’s CNN op-ed, “We need a PC that includes white people.” Trump’s victory should have been a wake-up call for liberals to quit circling the wagons so narrowly, to quit building walls around this or that demographic, to open the doors and be more tolerant and inclusive. It was an opportune moment to review and retrieve a little of the freewheeling 1960s (when liberals celebrated the cacophony of viewpoints, let people speak freely and make mistakes, and thought that all progressives — including whites and males – were in this struggle together). Instead, many post-Trump liberals simply lumped in the half of the country that disagreed with them with the KKK (another self-inflicted wound, as they give far, far too much to the KKK). And I have even seen a number of my liberal compatriots “unfriended” for stepping outside of the party line on this or that cultural point, even though they share the broader liberal vision. Thus, my heretofore liberal allies, after shooting themselves in the foot by turning people away when they should have been more inclusive, have responded by becoming even less inclusive, circling the wagons tighter and tighter.

There is hope though. I myself feel alienated from both the left and the right. But therein lies an opportunity. I know that I am not alone. Yes, some of my liberal friends have become more intolerant than ever after Trump, but some have not. Some, I think, are open to a grass-roots movement, a new radicalism that must begin outside of the current political spectrum and outside of academia’s pseudo-radical theories. It must, at least temporarily, confront the liberal as well as the conservative fixtures of that establishment. That means it must be willing to take on the “identity politics” departments, which have already become a very powerful establishment in their own right (and an establishment that brooks no dissent). Or so it seems to me. I am willing to hear some other voices (including old friends and new students in women’s and ethnic studies departments, who may be able to qualify my generalizations with inside information).

Until then, as ever, I await the new hippie uprising.

58 thoughts on “Post-Trump path to a whole new vision

    • That means a lot to me, coming from you, Lisa. You and I have our political differences but somehow we both know that we’re all in this together. We’re a perfect example of the ideal I’m reaching for in this post 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

      • I’m glad and just because we have a different in opinions or beliefs doesn’t mean I can’t see the other side of things. With that being said, I still haven’t seen the other side (liberals) take any accountability for their wrong doings. I think their could be compromising IF (and that’s a big IF) we stop blaming each other and instead find solutions to the real problem. Propaganda has a huge role in this political divide. This really should be about uniting not division which in my eyes the one who did the dividing is now leaving the White House. I am happier than ever about that but at least give Trump a chance. If he fails then by all means nail him to a wall. We (all of us) need to stick together and as one against the government period. This is exactly what they want. Much love Gary😉

        Liked by 2 people

  1. what an ugly thing
    an ugly year
    trump a pig
    hilary did not handle the pressure
    we need a strong third party
    more need to vote
    to cope
    to hope
    for a better future
    for us all

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The problem I have with your analysis–one of several–is that you can’t connect the dots between the university programs you cite and the demographics of the Trump supporters. By all accounts those supporters were often the least educated. So in my mind it’s not possible to connect them and their so called discontent directly with the programs you cite.

    You would perhaps have a better chance connecting their opposition/discontent to identity politics in general but I’d still quarrel with whether his voters, as a rule, even knew what the phrase “identity politics” meant.

    Instead what you are putting an intellectual gloss on (my view old friend) is their feeling of insecurity and alienation in a more and more diverse society which was breaking some of their dogmatic and comforting rules as it transformed. Obama’s election was the last straw for such folks who saw their world slipping away. (They now seek an imagined glorious past instead of any future.) And where we disagree is whether this feeling/fear of the least educated of his supporters (if my hypothesis is correct) correlates with xenophobia or racism. Because you are a Bodhisatva you reject that analysis. Because I have not attained that level of enlightenment and still recognize these dormant elements in myself I see them.

    But I’m all for the second coming of the hippie revolution and will be lending my moral support to those women who will be marching in protest on Inauguration Day. Someone light the fuse!

    Liked by 5 people

    • Hi Michael. Glad as ever for a little stimulating pushback. I agree with you that most xenophobic, racist, and ignorant people were on Trump’s side, but we’re arguing proportions. I think you’re taking the juiciest slice of Trumpkins and presenting them as if they are the whole picture. This is how liberals got into trouble in the first place. It’s true that the racist xenophobe vote went to Trump but it does not follow that everyone who disagrees with me is a racist xenophobe. And as a former cog in corporate America in a generally conservative area (New Orleans suburbs), I saw an endless stream of educated young men come through the office complaining about how they had to regurgitate the teacher’s point of view on racism and sexism and it left them bitter. And those less educated whites may not know about “identity politics” but they sure know what it means when they’re told that their hard economic times don’t count because they are privileged.

      I do believe your analytic explains some aspects of the election and mine does too – neither is all-inclusive. But mine, as always, is better 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Michael – does he have to connect the dots between the Trump voter and the liberal voter? Because in my mind it wasn’t liberals that jumped ship and voted for the Republican candidate. My experience among friends was that we could not agree on a candidate partly because of Hillary’s scandals and love of wall street among other things. When we (insert label here– progressives, liberals, leftists, social democrats,conservative democrats) lost Bernie, we ran helter-skelter to the polls with the mantra “anyone but Trump or Hillary.” WE wrote in Bernie, voted for Johnson, or didn’t vote at all (48% in 2016 vs 66% in 2012 roughly.) and those that did vote for her did so because she was a woman not because we thought she was a great candidate, or voted “please god -not Trump”.

      GARY – I so appreciate what you are saying… I have a very simple example of what you are saying – I was at a Duncan Donuts with a friend – a young highly educated woman that was all about “inclusiveness, feminism, equality.” An older gentleman behind us in line (this guy could have been my dad) complimented her on how beautiful she was and her reaction was appalling to me. She loudly called him a misogynist sexist creep. And while embarrassed for him and myself – I was more embarrassed and disappointed in her. It reminds me of the Christian saying “To be so holy minded you are no earthly good.” Hope you are well friend.

      Liked by 3 people

      • KIM,
        So was she—beautiful that is? And if so why haven’t you introduced me?

        I was suggesting Gary did not connect the dots between the Disenchanted Trump voter and the University programs he was discussing. And in response to Gary’s observations about the white male millennials he dealt with I would have told them to “grow some balls.” Do we live in a society where everything we disagree with is an insult? When I was in graduate school we had to write papers using certain behavioral perspectives that I thought ridiculous or attend lectures by professors with agendas. So what? Use your own brain and decide if you agree or not. No need to play the victim as a result.

        Liked by 2 people

          • No lingering resentments. Clearly annoyed at the time and I spoke up about it as did most members of our classes. Maybe it’s generational? I even dance with one of those professors when I see her out. But seriously I find it amusing that the right who has whined about the left’s claim of victimization for years claim so easily picks it up themselves.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Good for you. If everyone had your balls, the world would be … well, I’ll let someone else finish. However, in dealing with large numbers of people for political momentum, I think it remains true that when someone thumping an ideological agenda opens a conversation with “first admit you’re an asshole,” many of their interlocutors are going to push away ideologically. You may take it in stride, push back, or go have drinks with the thumper, but in the aggregate most people will simply seek another ideological home base.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Language is obviously important. I don’t recall professors berating any of us. They had a perspective and we aregu d against it. No animosity that I recall. Everyone kept their balls.


        • Right.. yeah she is – but you would never abide her vigorous feminism and she would not tolerate any comment you made about her ass or your big balls.
          I took Gary’s thesis statement to be “how did liberals alienate so many people that they could not close what should have been a done deal?” (not academia specifically) So in review your comment is valid as I did not take into account that the only white male millennials I know are crunchy Vermonters. A whole different planet.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Michael, I enjoyed your response, apart from the final paragraph. I have just heard of this “Women’s March” myself and felt the exact opposite to you. The name of this march seems to typify what Gary is saying. It tells me:
      1. The march is nothing to do with me (I’m a man.)
      2. I am not welcome on that march.
      3. The issues the march seeks to address are not my issues.
      4. I’m probably part of the perceived problem.
      5. Shit! Women are coming to push me out.

      This seems to exactly duplicate the subliminal message that Democrat voters are sending to Republican voters.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, Steve. I should say, though, I may still be more conventionally liberal than you 🙂 I’m fine with the idea of women’s marches and often find I share their interests. I do agree with you that the ones who send the message that you “are part of the problem” by virtue of your genitalia are becoming increasingly common in today’s political climate, but you can have a women’s march without the us vs them mentality. It was so in the past, is sometimes so in the present, and I hope so in the future 🙂


      • Steve,
        Thanks for the response. Hope you are well. As I understand the genesis of the Women’s March it stems from a middle age woman in Hawaii who was appalled at the non reaction by many to Trump’s bragging of grabbing women and sexually assaulting them. (I witnessed this in my world as CEO’s I dealt with and others would laugh and said “so what “, etc) From that the campaign arose and, as I understand it, is designed to push back on the various threats the prospective Trump administration has made to peel back certain laws/rulings that effect women, including the right to abortion. So I take no offense and indeed if I was in DC I’d march with them as the husband of one of my friends will be it your position that we should all be homogeneous and not gather in groups based on how we identify ourselves?

        I see no difference between such a March and any other lobbying effort by other groups, companies etc on behalf of any other group interest.

        I understand the concerns Gary has expressed about identity politics but it does not mean we must all be androgynous copies of each other. Diverse culture is fine with me. Indeed I’m not interested in a homogenous world. If I only wanted to be around people who looked and acted like me I’d carry a pocket mirror with me. Likewise I take no offense at Black lives matter, the anti-defamation league, the NAACP, Indian rights groups or similar groups. They have a right to push their agenda just like the neocons etc push theirs. They get demonized as dividers but every position taken divides and pushes someone away.

        At some point clearly we must come together and set aside differences to function as s country but dissent is healthy and with Tweet Trump about to assume office I think it is imperative.

        So I don’t agree with your assessment. The right enjoys pushing their agenda but wants everyone to calm down and remain quiet when the pendulum swings their way. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me, and intellectually dishonest. So I’m hoping everyone pushes back and the system is forced to adjust as it did in the 30s.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Hi Michael, Re: The Women’s March, I wasn’t making an assessment of the march’s aims, just reacting to its name. A march with a specific objective is one thing – I can either agree or disagree with its goals. But a march whose name specifically excludes me (whether intentionally or not) is symptomatic of the root problem I think Gary talks about.

          My biggest gripe of all is the word Progressive. Anyone who doesn’t support the “Progressive” agenda is by definition not progressive. It’s hard to begin to describe how angry that makes me, and I’m not even a Conservative. It’s basically a statement that the moral high ground belongs to one particular political group and that everyone else is on the Dark Side. No wonder there has been such a backlash.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Steve,
            I agree language is important. But the platform they put out is pretty broad—or as I understand the lingo—intersectional. But I don’t take offense at the language. I’m happy to march in a Women’s march.
            Now in New Orleans we have some very fun protests that are apparently planned. There is a Jazz funeral for democracy. Some comics (and this is broader than NO) are doing “What a joke” gatherings. There is a Millennial March, a Women’s march (they are marching together). The Burlesque folks are doing something called “politically undressed.” There is a “Tyrants and Fools: Shakespeare for the Inauguration.” And there is an “Anti-Inaugural dance.”

            Liked by 1 person

  3. You make some good points. My opinion which you can take or shuck in the river is that Trump won by appealing to those people whose vision of the perfect America is stuck in the past. They’d rather hide in Mayberry RFD then face what we in urban America know. (I live near SanFran where whites are not the majority) But the Dems cannot ram that fact down their throats.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. This was very well put, very much in line with the change in thinking I’ve experienced over the last year. We certainly need a “third way” separate from the usual left and right. As a student currently at a left-leaning institution, I can attest to problem of “us vs them”. Many of my fellows are still obsessed with demonising and blaming those they disagree with rather than trying to understand them, often tinged with an unhealthy dose of elitism. The divide between different elements of our civilisation that has grown over the last few decades is now splintering society. People don’t seem to realise that at the core roots, we all have more in common than is thought.Thanks for writing such a good post!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. What a very well presented treatise on what has been puzzling so many of us on the “left”. Like you, Gary, I feel alienated by both the liberals and the conservatives, and to be honest, I don’t know who to trust or why I should trust any of them. I’ve never subscribed to conservatism, and to this day, I am extremely skeptical of anything being espoused by the “right”. And I agree that the “left” is responsible for it’s implosion but here is where I digress from your estimate . Or maybe not.
    I can’t view what has happened from the security of academia, and I’m beginning to doubt that there is any security anywhere. My observations are that 1) the election of Ronald Regan turned this country’s “spirit” away from the concept of “shared human-ness” and codified America’s true spiritual belief, the accumulation of wealth. 2) The elimination of the “fairness Doctrine” gave way to the propagation of conservative media, be it print, radio, or television. The mantra espoused was that facts don’t matter, opinions do. And much like the Bible that had been used to justify the moral deficits of the American Republic, this “philosophy” became the guiding formula for modern day journalism. 3) Enter Bill Clinton and the Democratic party’s philosophy of “Centrism”. The center falls midway between the two extremes so the further “right” one side is, the further right the “left” has to move to accommodate the “right”. So eventually, the “left” moved so far to the right that it became a “watered-down” version of the “right”. If you’re basing your credibility on one’s integrity, the compromised party is viewed as having none. This is a point that has been espoused by the conservative media machine for over 30 years. 4) For over 20 years, the RNC media machine has trashed the integrity of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. It worked so well, convincing the the older generations to view HRC as un-trustworty. So, for the generation of voting millennials, all they’ve ever heard was how “bad” HRC is, “crooked Hillary, etc. 5) Approximately 43% of democrats that voted in the primaries supported Bernie Sanders, despite a virtual media blackout of his campaign. And if independents were included, Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination. 6) The corporate owned media selected HRC before the primary process. Yet, that same media spread gossip, un-substantiated charges, lies, etc., along with the so-called conservative media. So-called because in the final analysis, the corporate media acted as un-trustworthy as it’s conservative counterpart. They ignored or diminished the Sanders campaign and worse still, gave one candidate ALL the free press one could ask for. It was good for business so run with everything the “Orange One” says and does. 7) Regardless of all the sensationalism about Russia’s interference in this past election, the preferred excuse for the loss by the DNC, the real reason for this present situation is that the hubris of the Democratic Party selected HRC as the presidential nominee, in spite of polls showing Sanders winning by double-digits. It was the DNC’s refusal to change from it’s present, “centrist” philosophy that did them in. They had the chance to offer an alternative to the conservative vision for America but gave the electorate more of the same compromised populism and a heavy dose of Fear tactics. They refuse to change now. 8) One can find fault in a myriad of places, but maybe the biggest factor is that 46% or so of eligible voters didn’t bother to go to the poles. Then throw in gerrymandered voting districts and voter suppression laws and you begin to see the failures of our election process.
    The concepts of identity politics and political correctness are concepts defined by conservative thought. They are code words for the perpetuation of bigotry and intolerance. Espouse this for 30 years and you’ve converted almost three generations. Spread enough lies, trash one’s opposition, and you get a divided society that can’t affect the machinations of the true ruling class.
    Gary, forgive me for this rant. I will probably be laughed off your page for this tirade but these were my observations from this debacle. I will continue to try to be a better person for everyday of my earthly existence. I will hold true to my convictions of honesty, fairness, respect, and compassion. It’s what we all need to do, and of course, take no shit. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the rest of us.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ralph,
      Wonderfully put. The party that succeeds in defining wins—Szasz I think—and I concur with your thought about the right and identity politics and political correctness. Now we live in an upside down political world where conservatives have embraced a postmodern view of truth–there is none –and a man for president with a child’s insecurities. It’s post truth and post ideology. Facts no longer matter and indeed one of the impediments to breaking the polarization is that we can’t even agree on the basic underlying facts. Add in our own personal narratives, which most people don’t acknowledge and you have a majority pursuing cultivated ignorance (thanks Thomas Aquinas for the phrase).

      Liked by 2 people

    • Bravo, Ralph, for that exceedingly pleasurable rant. I agree with all the basics, though I may go a bit softer on Bill Clinton. Welcome to the club of old radical hippies who remain radical in spirit but have become as disillusioned with the left as we always have been with the right. The more I hear voices like yours, the more I think a new radicalism might be brewing outside of the political spectrum and outside of anything that can be encompassed by current liberal academic theories.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Post-Trump path to a whole new vision – Awe-Inspiring

  7. I am not an American and would not say whether you were right or wrong in whatever way you voted, that was your choice. What I would say is be very careful, do not tear your Country apart, you are already dividing it – have you not looked at the UK. Have you not seen the immense damage the dividing of the Country that those who lost the vote to Stay in Europe. People like me democratically placed our Votes, I Voted OUT and much to my surprise we Won – we shall at last be Out of Europe and able once again to make our own Laws, control our Borders. Yet there are those that claim I had no right to my vote and hence these spoilt bullies are dividing the Country. You may not like President Trump but He is your President he should have Respect or have you all lost that. Give the man a chance and how dare someone be so pathetic to call those that voted for him by other names, so childish. Obama made it clear he was no Friend of the UK because of his Father, personal, thats disgusting and so unprofessional, he was the most ineffectual President I can ever remember, since I started following US Politics since the early 1960s. Removing Churchill’s Statue how ridiculous of a so called President, good on Trump for restoring it. Let President Trump do the job he was voted in to do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Anna. I agree that trying to overturn the election through force of protest is not a good idea. We need to accept that Trump is in. However, I plan to vocally dispute every policy he proposes that I think is wrong for the country. I disagree 100% on Obama’s effectiveness, but I am just looking at the 2008-2016 line graphs on economic growth, job creation/loss, stock market, auto industry, number of uninsured, etc. There may be other things of greater concern to my British friends. (I’m more worried about policy than busts, but of the two busts of Churchill Obama saw every day in the White House, he left one on display and replaced the other with Martin Luther King — not something that I worry over, but I understand that some of my Brit friends will feel differently.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • No please you totally misunderstand, it is not about a Bust, personally I disliked Churchill well I would my late Parents were from Eire (Blarney and West Cork) my late Father’s Brother aged 15 was blown apart by The Black and Tans, the notorious Black and Tans that Churchill authorized, bitterness exists in Southern Ireland to this day with many. My Father came to Britain to work, he loved this Country and not once did I ever hear my Father utter a bad word about the UK. What hurt this Country was not the Bust, we have only just found that out, what hurt was what he said to Merkel in Germany and the way he treated the UK. As for Martin Luther King, well he would wouldn’t he.
        I respect your right to voice your opinion on the President’s policies. It is good that you feel you should accept him as President, he is there he was voted in. I do find it disgusting the way that some of your fellow Americans are treated because they voted for him. As someone who has followed American Politics for a long time, I shall never forget Hillary Clinton’s words on her own people “Unbearables” unforgivable. Take care, Anna.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Anna,
      I certainly agree that for better or worse Trump is president and there is no overturning the election results. But I also agree with Gary that I will—and have–oppose any of his policies or statements that I disagree with. Normally you are right it would be proper to say “give him a chance.” But we had 18 months of his hatefulness. We don’t need to wait until he does us in to object. For my part I don’t plan on being Eichmann when this train runs off the track. I consider myself a Kemp Republican but my more conservative friends have made a deal with the devil withTrump and I’m afraid they and we will pay a heavy cost as a result.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Michael, I enjoyed your comments, it is not easy and I appreciate that if you dislike someone as much as that and don’t trust him. Yet others in your Country felt that way for 8 years and they feel its their time. I wouldn’t want to be seen as dictating as it is not my Country, its just that I like America, hope to be there this September. Only time will tell, I have words with my eldest Son he dislikes President Trump, my youngest likes him, so there is much said here. In the UK when we had Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, goodness there were always arguments in this Country, but although I did not agree with her on a lot she made this Country the UK, Proud again. Take care and best wishes, Anna.


        • Anna,
          Thanks for the reply. Our positions neatly lay out the dilemma facing us in America. By way of explanation I offer the following. I’m sure that I disagreed with over half of Obama’s policies. Many harmed my business clients and in foreign policy some of his actions were feckless. But unlike my more ardently conservative friends I felt he conducted himself–on a personal level– (in other words as a man) honorably. So I disagreed vehemently with the many attempts by the far right to denigrate him as a human being.

          As to Trump my approach has been turned on its head. As a man he has done and said many many things that I find reprehensible. In other words before he ever announced a policy position I had to grapple with his treatment of women, of the disabled reporter, his denigration of anyone who disagrees with him, etc. It’s difficult for me to respect someone who has done or said these things (note I did not say I “hate” him as I can’t fathom using the word).

          So this is what underscores my immediate opposition to him. You may not agree with my characterization of the man—I understand—but I offer this as the explanation.

          And to some degree those of us who then examine his policies and think these are not just misguided but dangerous have a difficult decision to make. To use an imperfect analogy (I hope it remains imperfect) do we want to be Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill? If we think he is a danger I err on the side of Churchill calling him what he is as opposed to Chamberlain giving him the benefit of the doubt (I’m not saying Trump is Hitler but am presenting the dilemma in historical terms). Hope this explains a bit.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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