WE’RE DOOMED!!!!!! Global Warming, Islamophobia, And Hard Math Questions!!!!!!!!

image

Well, it’s past time for me to give the readers here something else to chat about.  I meant to do this yesterday, but, I was/am preoccupied by the tree laying on my house.  It’s very disturbing.  Still there were a couple of stories which caught my eye, yesterday.  I thought I’d share them with the readers here.

The first one is this bit of massive stupidity. ……

Professor: Islamophobia Accelerates Global Warming

Is Islamophobia accelerating global warming? That was the actual title of a lecture given earlier this week at Massachusetts Institute of Technology by a professor Ghassan Hage.

I can’t decide who should be more upset: the Australian taxpayers who are funding this loon’s position as a “future generation professor” at Melbourne University.

Or the alumni (including the Koch brothers, Michael Bloomberg, “Buzz” Aldrin and IM Pei) and donors who must surely now be asking of MIT “I thought the M stood for Massachusetts not Mickey Mouse. What the hell’s happened to the place? Why is student time and university funding by wasted on this unutterable horseshit?”

Actually, the answer to the question is quite simple.

Ghassan Hage fits perfectly the profile required for anyone who wants to get on in modern academe.

Hage, born in Lebanon before moving to Australia, is the author of several books exploring race in Australia, including, “White Nation” and “Against Paranoid Nationalism.” In online essays, he has called airport security an example “in which Westerners require from those they racialize an exact obedience to the letter of the law.”

A supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement, he has likened Israelis to “slave owners” in a tweet and has called Palestinian militants “freedom fighters” in an essay. He ended that particular essay, “A Massacre Is Not A Massacre,” sarcastically: “I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited. And they’re so f—— intelligent. Really.”

For those of you who were unable to attend the lecture, here is what you missed:

This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’

MIT is ranked number one in the world among universities for research. Annual tuition fees cost $45,000. Graduates can be pretty sure of a good job afterwards.

But why? If I were an employer would I really want to take on a graduate from a department – MIT Global Studies and Languages – which fostered such cod-intellectual gobbledegook?

Well, we all know socialists believe in the imaginary “global warming”.  Any rational person would recognize that the climate has changed throughout history and will continue to change regardless if the socialists/Marxists take over or not. 

I don’t know if “Islamophobia” is an actual word.  But, even if it is, it’s probably not being appropriately applied.  Again, any rational person in the world would know Islamization of any people or place should cause great concern.  All one has to do is look at the state of any Islamic state and the conditions their people live in.  It’s a horrid mass of hate, war, poverty, and suppression. 

But, how did we get to this point?  How is it that a huge part of a civilization (Western) has come to believe in imaginary climate and totally disregard a very real and immediate threat? —— well, I could probably write a book on this and still not adequately explain all that needs to be stated.  But, I suspect the next article would cast some light on this! ……

Year 2 SATs: Maths Question Aimed At Six And Seven-Year-Olds Is Completely Stumping Parents
Parents are claiming it’s too hard for their kids.

Parents are puzzled over a maths question that is aimed at Year 2 pupils taking their SATs exams. 

Mum Louise Bloxham tweeted a photo of the task that involved working out how many people were on a train.

The question states: “There were some people on a train. 19 people get off the train at the first stop. 17 people get on the train.

“Now there are 63 people on the train. How many people were on the train to begin with?”

@MichaelRosenYes Have you seen this one? Year 2!! pic.twitter.com/TDVjccH8U4

— Louise Bloxham (@LouiseBloxham) May 7, 2016

image

The photo was then picked up by the Facebook page ‘Parents Against Primary Testing‘.

Parents on both Twitter and Facebook were outraged that the question has been written for six and seven-year-olds. 

Some parents argued that they could only just work it out themselves, let alone their children.

Others argued the question was “ambiguous” and a “trick” for children taking a test. …….

Other versions of the story had parents angry that some students were reduced to tears and complained that the poor children’s egos were devastated. 

BTW, apparently, the FB page actually got the answer wrong, and have subsequently taken down the posting. 

At some point, many people in Western society have become unfamiliar with what a “test” is and its purpose. IT’S A TEST, YOU LOSER PARENTS!!!!!!!!  YOU IMBECILES!!!!!!  It is to evaluate the level of math understanding your children have!

Now, do I expect that most 7 y/o children can work this out?  Nope!  Do I expect that some can?  Yep!  I think I had a couple of children who could, and perhaps a couple who could not at 7. 

At what time did we get to the point where it was no longer a good thing to challenge young minds to learn and excel? 

This is a large part of why people believe in global warming, embrace socialism, and think an Islamic nation is some sort of alternative lifestyle of equal value to the rest of the world.  They make the Marquis de Sade look like Santa Claus!  On a near daily basis we see acts of depravity committed against fellow human beings in Islamic nations around the world.  Not only is this accepted in the various Islamic nations it is encouraged.  Indeed, in many it is codified by law! 

But, yet, a most prestigious American university will invite some idiot lunatic babbling insanity about Islamophobia.  All the while, Westerners will cry, moan, and complain about testing and challenging their children over a simple math question.  

We’re doomed.

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to WE’RE DOOMED!!!!!! Global Warming, Islamophobia, And Hard Math Questions!!!!!!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    You have a tree laying on your house?????

    BTW…I thought the problem was easy…there’s only 2 difference

    • suyts says:

      Yes. An old oak split and laid down on my house. It starts about 30 ft from the back of my house and lays across the top and over to the front of the house. It happened to lay down right on top of the power line which comes to my house. Had power for a couple of days! Called the electric company ….. they said they’d get right on it ….. in about 3 days or so. It finally tripped the fuse from the transformer, so they came out when we lost power. No problem for them! The guy just dropped the line and then moved to on top of the tree. Called it good and left. In one place it’s about 4 inches above the tree laying on my house. There a few limbs on my house that if I cut them off, they will fall directly on my power line/weatherhead. I didn’t want the guy to cut the tree up for me, but, I would have expected him to make to where no one had to die to get the darn thing off my roof! It’s distracting.

      Yeh, it’s a difference of two. 63+2 is soooo hard!!!!! No one except a math major should be asked such a difficult question!!!!!! We’re doomed, I say!!!! 😦

      • Latitude says:

        Other than the power line, you didn’t say holes…..so thankfully it’s not going to be a roofing job too!

        I think these kids that were raised on common core could not figure that problem out at all. You and I probably did it on the first read through..

      • suyts says:

        As far as I can tell, the roof held up! …… So far.
        Yeh, probably everyone being old enough to have actually been taught math got it on the first look.

        • Latitude says:

          I just looked at your radar….you’re about to find out!
          …got everything crossed on this end

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, it’s coming. Sigh…… I’m not sure if I’ve bought enough beer or not!!!!

        • Latitude says:

          ….I’m off to Dairy Queen…..still trying to find that damn ice cream cake roll..I’m probably going to have to just make one

      • Rainer Bensch says:

        Yeh, it’s a difference of two. 63-2 …

  2. I guess teaching reality and commonsense just got too boring.

  3. Lars P. says:

    There was also a post at WUWT about that professor:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/mit-lecture-is-islamophobia-accelerating-global-warming/#comment-2212014

    reading through the comments there found an interesting point. What is islamophobia?
    “And since Islam means submission, the fear to be submitted is perfectly rational.
    The opposite, islamophilia, is pathological, it is a form of intellectual masochism.”

  4. DirkH says:

    As to the trees: They’re beautiful but take care to cut them down while they’re of manageable size. They grow like crazy with all that CO2.

    ” and think an Islamic nation is some sort of alternative lifestyle”

    I gotta use that one. Oh, you Muslims have such a fascinating lifestyle.

    • And succumb to gravity when burdened by too much snow. My neighborhood experienced too much of that this past season. I still have several large branches to cut up.

      Islam as a ‘deathstyle’ seems more correct. Figuratively and literally.

  5. Latitude says:

    who’d a thunk it…
    …now Mexico is campaigning for Trump

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-mexico-backlash-223128

    (the wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump)

    • Unreal. They really consider us to be under they’re control.

      • And it’s a given that that’s the way it should be.

        • Latitude says:

          I can’t believe the stupidity…
          Obviously they would only be preaching to the choir…
          But even more obvious is that they are confirming the political status quo that Trump voters are 100% against…

          They would be confirming everything Trump voters think….qualifying it

      • Latitude says:

        or we are stupid enough to believe there’s really no rapists, murders, robbers and thieves
        They are going to run ads saying how safe and all that blah blah blah…Mexico is
        ..I hope they don’t run those ads on news stations!

        …ad immediately followed by breaking news
        1000 people killed in border gang war….five people raped by illegals….women kills illegal before he kills her

  6. DirkH says:

    Hedge fund billionaire supported Cruz, now flips seamlessly to Hillary.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-13/hedge-fund-billionaire-spends-13-million-supporing-ted-cruz-then-immediately-flips-h
    Remember that Goldman Sachs wife?

  7. DirkH says:

    Trump got accused of being a client of pedophile ringleader Epstein.
    Remember Lenin? Always accuse the enemy of your own greatest sin?
    Bill Clinton sure does:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

    Maybe we’ll see Bill AND Hillary in orange jumpsuits. I would nearly say somebody’s out for them.
    Well who? Hmmm… Romanian hacker Guccifer, detained by FBI, explains how the KREMLIN got all the clinton e-mails…
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-12/guccifer-and-kremlins-20000-hacked-emails-eye-hillarys-perfect-storm
    Kremlin = BRICS…

    (Of course, there’s counter-attacks: Rousseff replaced by …

  8. Me says:

    I kinda find it funny you use a George Carolin meme. I also think George was a leftist to some extent from other things I have seen. But then again I have seen George say what most leftest would never dare to say. I guess that is why I like him.

  9. Me says:

    And as for your SAT’s thing, that is a joke right?

  10. Me says:

    Well here is the thing, from my point of view. The teachers only teach you the bare minimum as required. Then you get one that will teach things not required, they are the ones that teach you the most. And they didn’t expect anything in return. But aparently mine was a science teacher, and everything from there was how you like to say it is cannon. But nothing is until it is law. Since it has to go through and be verified by experiment.

    • Me says:

      Now ther will be those out ther that will say that the laws here isn’t the same somewhere else. And yeah, because we base the laws here and apply them relitavity.

  11. Latitude says:

    Does everyone else think Paul Ryan is a juvenile little prick too?

  12. DirkH says:

    I completely overlooked this in your post:
    “This talk examines the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis. It looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation.”

    The biggest oil company in the world is…

    ARAMCO.

    OWned by Saudi Arabia i.e. the hardline Wahabist Muslims called the House Of Saud. Who also happen to own 5 trillion in US treasuries.

  13. DirkH says:

    Obama tries to force Doctors that receive Medicare / medicaid money to perform abortions and sex changes. (and as you all know the Genderists are gung ho on sex-changing minors.)

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/14/obama-admin-rule-forces-hospitals-doctors-accepting-federal-funds-provide-gender-transition-services-abortions/

    IOW: He’s campaigning for Trump. You have no choice now!

    • DirkH says:

      ….which leads me to this thought: According to genderists, male and female are social constructs. BUT, why then operate on the physical body at all? You can be anything you like anyway. BUT, if operating on the body is so important, why the emphasis on sex? Why not change the height as well? The skin color? If sex changing is so important, bleaching black people should be as well! (Hello B-yonce, hello Lil Kim.) (And that means that fake-tan-comb-over Trump is a grievance group to be protected all by himself!)

      • Latitude says:

        roaring laughing!!!!!!!!!!

        good one!

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        At least height and skin color actually exist. ‘Transgender’ doesn’t. They’re merely mandating the enabling of the psychosis that causes some to believe that it does. And that they’re a victim of it. A psychosis that will lead some to even disfigure themselves.

        We’re reaching unbelievable levels of progressive delusion. If they really cared about these people they’d be mandating treatment for their illness.

    • Latitude says:

      I keep saying…all the wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump

  14. Lars P. says:

    I love my white male privilege:

    • Lars P. says:

      and a small bonus from comments there:

      Ernesto Manuel:
      “Stop it with your statistics, you’re hurting people’s feeling when you tell the truth. “

  15. kim2ooo says:

    Hmmmmm:

    ” How many people were on the train to begin with?”

    “19 people get off the train at the first stop”

    19 All other numbers are irrelevant to the question. – ” How many people were on the train to begin with?”

    • kim2ooo says:

      So you don’t think you have to be politely embarrassed for me…………..🙂

      Maths, to me, is a HARD SCIENCE no pseudoscience. Hard science demands facts not assumptions.

      The ONLY factual number of people we are given to be on the train at the start is 19. There is NO indicator than any people were left.

      The rest of their question is built on assuming that there were more than 19 people at the start on the train at the FIRST STOP.

      Ps I understand what they were trying for.. but much like Common Core they allow liberal soft science to pretend.

      • Latitude says:

        took me all afternoon….but I got it!! LOL

        • kim2ooo says:

          The first statement said: There were SOME PEOPLE on the train.”

          The second statement said: “19 people get off the train at the first stop.”“19 people” ……………… MEETS ALL qualifiers of the first statement of ” Some people”.

          What did those “SOME PEOPLE “ do in the SECOND statement?

          They LEFT the train.

          STOP STOP!🙂

          What did the question ask?

          ” How many people were on the train to begin with?”

          Factually, we can only account for 19.

          ———————————————

          Had the first statement said something such as: There were more than 19 people on the train……………………………………..

        • DirkH says:

          But you get another information, how many where there after some left and some more entered. Which gives you a constraint. Now you can be nitpicky and say, but we are not told how many more stations the train passes through. But, that won’t earn you any points. Arguing with the teacher is what you do in the SOFT sciences….

        • kim2ooo says:

          ” Arguing with the teacher is what you do in the SOFT sciences….”

          Ha ha ha ha!🙂

          Anything that happens AFTER the SECOND statement does NOT Change the factual number given of 19 in the second statement.

          EACH statement is presented as a WHOLE [ meaning the statement starts and ends – the ending is the “.” [ period ]. It becomes a COMPLETED STATEMENT.

          Using your logic here for a moment: To get to use those other constraints you have to IGNORE The Authors OWN FIRST Statement VALUES.

        • DirkH says:

          *At least* 19, Kim. That’s the first constraint.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “DirkH says:
          May 16, 2016 at 12:07 pm
          *At least* 19, Kim. That’s the first constraint.

          Please reread the whole problem. YOU’VE ADDED that ***At Least*** constraint.

          That is not hard science.

          VIA The problems statements………………… Prove [ FACTUALLY ] more than 19 were on board at the BEGINNING.

        • DirkH says:

          ““There were some people on a train. 19 people get off the train at the first stop.”

          So we know there were AT LEAST 19 people on the train. What’s the problem.

      • kim2ooo says:

        How many train stations it passes through – how many people get on etc. Is not relevant to the question because they didn’t setup the first statement. YOU ARE TO ASSUME MORE PEOPLE ON THE TRAIN

        ” How many people were on the train to begin with?”

      • kim2ooo says:

        Try this math out on your banker, engineer etc. I’m sure they will ASSUME more money is coming from you.🙂

        • cdquarles says:

          x + 19 – 17 = 63.
          x + 2 = 63.
          X = 65.

        • cdquarles says:

          Heh, my bad eyes. Let me do this again with the signs in the correct spots.
          x – 19 + 17 = 63.
          x – 2 = 63
          x = 65.

        • cdquarles says:

          Kim, plain reading of the question says, “There are *some* people on the train. Some is an unknown number. Yes, we lack enough information at this point to say how many were on the train (staff :P). This is a fact contingent on this stated condition.
          The train stops. 19 people get off, so we have a variable (x) – 19 then 17 get on. Now we have our variable x – 18 + 17. At this point the number of people contingently known to be on this train (fact at this point) is an algebraic equation with two unknowns. You can state this as x – 19 + 17 = y.
          Next we are given a contingently true factual statement eliminating our second unknown. You can write it thus: x – 19 + 17 = y = 63. Simplified, we have x – 19 + 17 = 63.
          This gives us a fully specified (and contingently true logical statement) algebraic statement.
          Solving this equation gives us the contingently true number of the number of people (staff and passengers) that were on the train at the beginning.

      • cdquarles says:

        Kim, that’s not quite true. Hard science should expressly state their assumptions, since the truths here are contingent!

        Take chemistry as an example. 2H2 + O2 + energy -> 2H2O + more energy. The energy required and released depend upon the conditions assumed and given as assumed by faith.

        • kim2ooo says:

          cdquarles says:
          May 16, 2016 at 2:12 pm”

          HE he he he! I’ve rattled the bee hive with this one.😉

          I have no problem working the problem, as everyone else here has.

          I repeat:

          “There were SOME PEOPLE on the train.”

          The second statement said: “19 people get off the train at the first stop.” — “19 people” ……………… MEETS ALL qualifiers of the first statement of ” Some people”.

          Had the first statement said something such as: There were more than 19 people on the train…………………………

          MY problem seems to be missed here by some.

          YEAR TWO MATHEMATICS deserve better.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “19 people get off, so we have a variable (x) “

          Why are you insistent that there is a variable (X)?

          You are insistent ONLY BECAUSE they have continued issuing numbers AFTER statement 2.

        • DirkH says:

          “You are insistent ONLY BECAUSE they have continued issuing numbers AFTER statement 2.”

          Yes. Only because of that. Your statements are logical – if you have only half the text. But you don’t.

        • cdquarles says:

          Some people implies a variable, though, Kim.

        • cdquarles says:

          Oh yes, Kim, I’ve been doing word problems like this for more than 50 years. Nearly every example (yeah, this might be different, but it wasn’t) had a preface that said “Read the whole question before answering it” and that is a part of that kind of a test, typically.

        • kim2ooo says:

          cdquarles says:
          May 16, 2016 at 10:47 pm
          Some people implies a variable, though, Kim.

          “19 people” ……………… MEETS ALL qualifiers — ***variables*** of the first statement of ” Some people”

          —————————————————–
          cdquarles says:
          May 16, 2016 at 10:56 pm
          Oh yes, Kim, I’ve been doing word problems like this for more than 50 years. Nearly every example (yeah, this might be different, but it wasn’t) had a preface that said “Read the whole question before answering it” and that is a part of that kind of a test, typically.

          I’m surprised that someone professing to doing logic / math problems would resort to this as an argument or defense.

          Appeal to Authority is a fallacy.

          EACH statement is a COMPLETE Thought. It is PUNCTUATED with a period – meaning END of thought.

          In word puzzles 50 % of the weight of the puzzle is given to wording – 50% to mathematics.

          Y’all are quick to JUMP over the WORDING / Punctuation – to play with the maths.

          .

        • cdquarles says:

          Let me try this again. The whole question is a single logical unit. All 4 of the statements quantify the whole. Each single statement qualifies a part and each one qualifies the statement preceding it.

          cdquarles says:
          May 16, 2016 at 2:12 pm”

          HE he he he! I’ve rattled the bee hive with this one.😉

          I have no problem working the problem, as everyone else here has.

          I repeat:

          “There were SOME PEOPLE on the train.”

          The second statement said: “19 people get off the train at the first stop.” — “19 people” ……………… MEETS ALL qualifiers of the first statement of ” Some people”.

          Had the first statement said something such as: There were more than 19 people on the train…………………………

          MY problem seems to be missed here by some.

          YEAR TWO MATHEMATICS deserve better.

          So, Kim, in this semantic context, 19 does *not* fully specify the meaning of some here. Had their been no other subsequent statements that further specify the whole thing, you’d be unable to answer it beyond ‘There is insufficient information available.”; and that is where I think you’ve not gotten what Dirk and I are saying. That is also why I added the ‘front of the examination book statement’ for the typical *whole*.

          Some, semantically, is an *unknown* and without any other information, must be considered as a variable, especially in the context given. Saying that 19 people got off the train at the first stop adds information that qualifies the semantics. Some now means at least 19 and possibly an unknown number much larger than 19. Thus, as Dirk said, we know that there were at least 19 and some means at least 19 and possibly more. Had some meant 19 and only 19, there would have been no logical reason for saying “some”.

          I am not appealing to authority as such. I am appealing to the logic of the whole set, semantically, as has been given in this and other examples. My logic is contingently true, just not categorically so, given the information that we have been provided.

          One can use logic to eliminate contingently false semantics if there is necessary and sufficient qualifying conditionals given.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “Some People”

          The number 1 is not enough to meet all qualifiers.
          The number 2 is enough to meet all qualifiers.
          The number 3 is enough to meet all qualifiers.
          The number 4 is enough to meet all qualifiers.
          The number 5 is enough to meet all qualifiers.

          ……………………….
          The number 19 is enough to meet all qualifiers.

          The number 19 is given in the second statement – The are DESCRIBED as part of the ORIGINAL People.

          The author has had TWO chances IF HE HAD WISHED to express more than 19 people – Within the first TWO COMPLETE THOUGHTS.

          They chose not to.

          Had they used these or similar qualifiers………..

          EXAMPLE: “more than 19 people were on the train”
          EXAMPLE 2: 19 people from the crowd got off the train”

          THEY CHOSE NOT TO USE THESE QUALIFIERS. TWICE!

          If you can’t see the problem here…………….. I Dono.

        • cdquarles says:

          Kim, there is no problem from the definitions of the words used. Some means an unknown number as a modifier to a collective noun. That’s why there is no problem with the sentence, logically, under the rules of English Grammar that I learned many years ago. One can be too literal and, to me, that seems to be an issue here. Some people, by plain meaning, says that there is an unknown number of people, with people being a collective noun, A collective noun is a name for a set. What some adds here is that there are more than the number explicitly or implicitly entailed by two, a couple, three, few, and et cetera; and that there are fewer than the number of elements potentially realized by the census of the individuals that comprise ‘people’.

          Context matters and to understand the context, you have to use all of the available information given from the subsequent clarifying or qualifying statements. That some can mean 19 in a context does not preclude it meaning something else as the first statement in a connected whole.

          Now if you’re telling me that they’ve ‘Newspeaked’ the meaning of the word some, then I’m just going to say to myself, “WTF is going on?” and keep on truckin’.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “One can be too literal and, to me, that seems to be an issue here.”

          Ha ha ha ha!

          How is one “TOO LITERAL” in mathematics?

          This has been an interesting debate, to me. Even after I posted a well known problem we humans are trained to carry out. We are trained to ADD / SUBTRACT / CORRECT etc… the WRITTEN word over mathematical units.

          If you wish I can post many more examples…. And studies on why we do so.

          We attribute / correct based on our feelings, expectations.

          A book you might be interested in:

          “More to my taste are examples of the deliberate “false proofs” that mathematicians invent for entertainment, where a misleading diagram or carefully obscured error leads to an apparently valid proof of a ridiculous result such as the proposition that all triangles are isosceles. Some of these are likely to be familiar to most readers, but this book provides a collection of examples that could usefully illustrate undergraduate teaching materials on proof.

          The book concludes by discussing subtle errors and confusions in probability, which often result from imprecise wording Once again, some examples are banal while others are genuinely interesting. The final exercise presenting five different solutions to “a counterintuitive prediction of the sex of a child” makes hard work of an easy question!

          https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/magnificent-mistakes-in-mathematics-by-alfred-s-posamentier-and-ingmar-lehmann/2007339.article

        • kim2ooo says:

          cdquarles ………………

          Do I remember you also arguing in favor of other “Common Core” problems here at suyts?

        • DirkH says:

          kim2ooo says:
          May 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm
          “cdquarles ………………
          Do I remember you also arguing in favor of other “Common Core” problems here at suyts?”

          Give it up Kim. This is not Common Core lunacy. This is age old text questions. Common Core math are these crazy needlessly complicated algorithms to achieve utterly simple results.

        • kim2ooo says:

          DirkH says:
          May 19, 2016 at 4:43 pm

          Give it up Kim. This is not Common Core lunacy.

          Geeeeseses Mr. DirkH -Ya’ just added evidence to my claim. You saw and read into … …………..something not written.

          BTW: This is not the age old NOR the “Common Core” …. It is the NEW SATS test…. BASED / Composed by Common Core adherents. IT was released in March this year.

          Maybe, you both could volunteer at you local schools as a teachers aid? I think y’all would be a great asset.

        • kim2ooo says:

          I hope all have enjoyed the dissection of this problem.

          In a decade ( the way it’s going ) you won’t be able to have such fun.. Kids are being “taught to the test”… “There are no wrong answers” etc….

          AND it’s your generation allowing it to happen.😦

        • DirkH says:

          Well Kim I know such tests from 40 years ago. Criticizing this as the new Common Core idiocy is misdirected criticism. Also, clearly only one number is the correct solution, as the equation system is completely determined. I don’t know why you now bring up this “everyone gets a price”. It’s got nothing to do with that.

        • cdquarles says:

          About Common Core, well, I don’t think it is any good, or if there is any good in it, it is where there is no logical difference between it and extant pedagogy from millennia ago.

          See, you are talking mathematics, and yes, logic applies to mathematics; yet we are also talking about *language* and we must also use logic to encode and decode language. [This is the danger that exists with the fact that living human languages are mutable. They are always subject to Newspeak and Doublespeak.]

          As Dirk and I have said, this form of algebraic word problems far predate Common Core. My mom’s not around any more to ask her (and hope that she’d be able to remember them, but on the other hand, my grandparents used to give us word problems in the same form when I was 4 years old, so this form is at least a century old), yet I think that if I searched for 19th Century elementary school algebra books, I’d find the word problems then will have the same structure as the ones Dirk and I were exposed to before Common Core and New Math, and etc.

        • cdquarles says:

          Kim said, “Kids are being taught to the test”, well that’s a problem with the ‘system’, for we were taught, as recently as 40 years ago, the minimum we needed to know in order to learn for ourselves what we would need to know. We were not taught to the test. For if we learned what we needed to learn, we knew what we would find on any test designed to elicit the ability to read, understand, calculate or evaluate or decode the concept being examined, apply logic, even if that was not formally taught, and conclude. That schools today *don’t* do this is an indictment of the leftist’s system. They imposed it, we fight it. Some times we are successful and some times we are not; and that is a function of the general acceptance of leftist premises.

  16. DirkH says:

    Interesting facts about Reagan’s protectionism:
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/14/hillary-pledges-open-borders-levin-responds-with-attack-on-trumps-tariffs/
    While Levin lambasts Trump for protectionist stance and swoons over Reagan, Reagan did institute a 50% import tariff on Japanese motorcycles to save Harley Davidson; and a 100% tariff on Japanese semiconductors to protect US semiconductor industry.

  17. DirkH says:

    If you pay an American university a real sh$tload of money they will agree to replace your brain by a bunch of styrofoam chips:
    American college kids say the darnedest things about the difference between men and women, on video.
    http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/05/14/sneaky-family-group-fails-to-trick-college-students-into-admitting-men-and-women-are-different-video/

  18. DirkH says:

    Hillary:
    The Democrat front-runner for her party’s 2016 presidential nomination said Friday, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/hillary-muslims-have-nothing-whatsoever-to-do-with-terrorism/

    What happens to countries during islamisation; the stages:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/as-muslim-population-grows-what-can-happen-to-a-society

  19. DirkH says:

    Mathematics is racist, having sex with homeless people fights capitalism, and more such gems in the writings of the luminaries of the SJW’s
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/14/method-behind-madness-craziest-sjw-phd-dissertations/

  20. Latitude says:

    I hope everyone is keeping up with the news…
    …and all the crap that’s coming out about Obama and the democrats lying

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      I thought ‘news’ had to be new. 🙂

    • Me says:

      Well if you are refering to this then it says two things about the man speaking here, first ignorance isn’t a virtue then Zero knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway, so he can’t comeback and claim he didn’t know. And then he proves himself a liar when being asked by the press about events concerning him and his stament was he heard about it from the same press asking him, so he was pleading ignorant. Got to like them Virtues he speaks of.

      • cdquarles says:

        Good one there, Me. This isn’t the only example of this trick. Folk with long memories remember.

        • Me says:

          Ya know, I may not be well liked because I am non believer or not sure, But I like to tell it like it is. I’m not saying believers are wrong but to Me it really looks that way from what I saw here a few years ago. And I think Me saying that, I lost some friends here. There was a time when I would give Christmass wishes and stuff, and I meant it in a freindly way. Even though I really dont believe but it was a friendly gesture and my background was Christian and it is my culture. Now James knew what I was andI knew after the fact that he was really religious. That was just after he created this site. Before that we were just the same against this AGW BS. So I kinda guess it all changed after a Christmass a couple years ago. Where I gave out my christmass wishes and got nothing back. But I guess it goes back to just before where I said I don’t believe and got met with a wave all at one time. I thought we were friends but learned otherwise, and said to leave me alone. I guess it was my fault, as this is his site and His sister was posting her religious practice here. But ya know, just like how CliSci and all the contradictions in that and pretty much every thing they said was BS and never happened, it was pretty much the same for me with religion. that is the reason I am pretty much a non believer is because of, well, the book. I was pretty much a non believer way before this Global Warming thing. But I still had respect for my friends, and these Global warming people I have no respect for them.
          Now I am pretty much the same, I am a conservative non believer and against this AGW crap because it doesn’t add up except for government taxes yet again and it doesn’t solve anything in the end. And then when I look at religion it was the same. You may say different but it wasn’t much different in the 70’s and I doubt it was much different before that, but probable worse. So that is it in a nutshell. Things got better later and I didn’t mind the religious thing but then Islam started rearing it’s ugly head bigger and everwhere. I remember seeing the USS Cole being carted off, and it didn’t seem as bad although sailors lost their lives, but at that time I wasn’t in the military. But When 911 happened, that is something I will never forget, and I will never trust them islamist. So far I haven’t seen anything they ever done that was trustworthy. But all the times I pissed off James here, He gets my respect because he promotes what he says and stands by it. So I guess I wasn’t that bad that he never censored me, when others did. A true freedom fighter. But I’m sure I pressed his buttons, and I guess I need to realise what I done and say I’m sorry.
          And that goes for his sis too. But to that other jackoff and it knows who it is. It isn’t going to happen.

        • suyts says:

          Me, you don’t need to apologize for anything. I’m sorry I didn’t read this comment until now.

          Me, you’ve never lost me as a friend. Do you push my buttons from time to time? Sure, but, friends can do that. I try to read all the comments today, but, I just don’t have a lot of time, anymore. But, believe me when I tell you, you and all of the regulars here are never far from my thoughts. Me, we go back to way before this blog. I knew you were not a believer before I started this blog, and was and am happy that you read and comment here.

          I think, sometimes you are too sensitive, in that you perceive a slight when none was intended. That we can disagree and remain friends is something I revel in! Please never see it in a different light!

          I do recall having a conversation with my sister about you. Let me assure you that she wishes nothing but the best for you. Me, I understand that you’re not a believer. I also understand that sometimes other believers may not approach conversation with you in a good manner. Indeed, I may not always approach conversation with you in a good manner.

          While I love Cd, and the many others who are believers who comment here, it is people such as you who are more than welcome here. I suppose Cd is sealed. I cannot help Cd beyond what eternity has in store for him. I cannot give him more than what he already has. You, I can help. That I have not, yet, is to my shame, not yours. I hope this makes sense to you.

          In the mean time, we can still share thoughts on secular issues.

          James

        • cdquarles says:

          Okay.

          To me, you can’t be a nun-believer. That is counter to human nature. Being skeptical of organized religion, well yes, I can see that.

          So I will ask you to think about these two questions. You don’t have to answer them. All that I ask is that you think about them.

          1. Can No Thing (non being and thus no existence) bring Any Thing into being?
          2. Did you bring yourself into existence, either as a potential being or as an actual one?

        • Me says:

          Matter can not be created nor destroyed. So there was never anything that was created from nothing. It was always there.

        • cdquarles says:

          Hmm, If I take that as your answer, it still seems to be an elision of my question.
          Hmm, that also seems to mean that you possess a materialist faith. What if that faith is misplaced? What if matter wasn’t always there, for just because our experience says, wait. our experience says that matter can be destroyed, turning it into energy. It also says that matter can be created from energy. So you are saying that energy has always been there. So can I say that energy is existence, or is there more to it than that?

        • DirkH says:

          …and does the concept of a chair still exist when the chair is gone?

  21. Me says:

    And the thing is, even though I think what I think, I let my kids do their own thing because the wife is religious and takes them to church. And really I don’t care because I don’t have to go. And if the issue was ever brought up of making me go, it’d be the last time they would want to see me there. So it’s better off the way it is.

  22. DirkH says:

    Me says:
    May 17, 2016 at 3:35 am
    ” Now I am pretty much the same, I am a conservative non believer and against this AGW crap because it doesn’t add up except for government taxes yet again and it doesn’t solve anything in the end. And then when I look at religion it was the same.”

    Well different people get different information and come to different conclusions. I was pretty much a Christian AND a believer in Darwinian evolution (because, why shouldn’t God create the conditions for an evolutionary process); over time I found out the holes in Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian, which is Darwin with genes) evolution, so now it’s pretty clear to me that I was being hoodwinked. As evolution cannot work given the constraints found in reality, a totally different outlook emerges (hint: it must be a spiritual one). Evolution – while a nice idea – is proven wrong – the evolutionists don’t even try to defend it – because the numbers show it can’t work (*)- so the evolutionists at this point in time just proclaim “We have won, you religious people are nutters” (their only argument being that God does not make a measurement device react).

    Think about it. When is the last time you heard Dawkins calculate the probability of positive mutations? I give you a hint. NEVER. It is not a science – it is polemic from start to finish.

    (*) Every human germ cell contains about 30 negative mutations. Every child inherits about 60 defects from sperm cell and egg cell. Natural selection would have to kill off *ALL* children to maintain the quality of the genome even BEFORE any positive mutation could occur. In spite of this, evolutionists claim that magically a positive development takes place. At this point in time, the theory must be called rejected.

    Same for origin of life – I think they have given up entirely even researching it. When was the last time you heard about a new idea there in the news? 20 years ago? Wouldn’t such ideas be newsworthy even given the stupidity of most journalists?

    So, the evolutionists behave *EXACTLY* like the warmunists: Stonewalling and defending a refuted theory.

    • DirkH says:

      Evolution of course is the FOUNDATION for the “a human is just a walking lump of meat”-atheism on which the modern socialist state builds – as the human is made from dead matter only, he can be shaped by the Total State into any form the state likes. I include the imperial USA (from 1898 on) just as the USSR and the EU – mostly a CIA creation – in this.

      • DirkH says:

        A key milestone in the Atheist world revolution was Wundt, the founder of behaviorism, at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, which was rechristened Max Planck Institute in the BRD. He was the teacher of Pavlow. At that time, Americans came to Germany to make their PhD – the PhD being a Prussian invention – later introduced in the USA.

        Behaviorism is basically bankrupt but the repercussions refuse to go away for now.

      • DirkH says:

        If evolution cannot work, DEVOLUTION sure can – and it is what one would expect given the genetic defect accumulation; and the general tendency of the universe to become more entropic.
        BUT this totally changes the outlook: Instead of an automatic development to higher and higher perfection, we face inevitable downfall. In this view, the clock is ticking, time is running out, not by Global Warming, but through extinction (and extinction is what we observe – have the animals that go extinct simply lost their viability? Look at the reproduction rates of some of them. Is it any wonder they go extinct?)
        (I could also mention the white race right here)

        This very real problem is entirely ignored by the Atheist world leaders. They say that diversity will save the day. But the imported populations have a lower IQ than we; they cannot replace us and our civilisation is doomed (if current trends continue).

        It looks like we are creating more and more tecnology to escape our own extermination. Maybe it’ll work. Maybe the Technological Singularity (von Neumann, Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge) saves the day and becomes our rapture. Is this what was prophecied? So – does atheism meet its master (and maker)?

  23. DirkH says:

    “Things got better later and I didn’t mind the religious thing but then Islam started rearing it’s ugly head bigger and everwhere. […]But When 911 happened, that is something I will never forget, and I will never trust them islamist. So far I haven’t seen anything they ever done that was trustworthy.”

    Now, they don’t call their god the best deceiver for nothing.
    You are calling it “the religious thing”. Understand that Christianity and Islam have been at polar opposites for 1,400 years.
    Christians love the truth. Muslims love the lie. From there, everything else plays out.

  24. leftinflagstaff says:

    Conditions can change faster and to a greater degree than evolution can keep up with. Invasive species [usual us, currently), ELE events (impacts), severe climate and habitat changes, are more the cause of extinctions than devolution or loss of viability. Even not for the animal directly, but for their food source.

    The white race has lost no ability to reproduce, just the need or desire to. Race isn’t species anyway.

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      A herbivore suddenly needing to become a carnivore isn’t gonna happen overnight.

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      Would I agree that much of our species is reversing evolution into devolution by choice? Absolutely. We see it in the rejection of self-defense. In abortion. In excessive, lifelong dependency for our needs to be provided for us. All completely unnatural states. Of course evolution is halted.

      • DirkH says:

        “We see it in the rejection of self-defense.”
        A *stunning* but typical example here
        dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/account-of-the-paris-attacks/

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Yep. And even in the more subtle, but just as unnatural, ‘open borders’ mindset.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Even plants wage warfare on a daily basis. Evolving counter-measures & counter-counter measures.

          We’ll soon be lower than plants.🙂

        • cdquarles says:

          From the Bible Gateway, the KJV (check out the other translations):
          Genesis 1:22

          And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
          In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

          Genesis 1:28

          And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
          In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

          This is the law of biological life on earth. Boiled down, then, “Be fruitful and multiply, lest ye be replaced”, and that is the tautology taught as the theory of biological evolution of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Survival of the fittest is not how it works.

          The corollary of this is that every successful form is fruitful and multiplies and does so by altering the local (chemical) environment to enhance its own and its offspring’s reproduction and survival.

          That a cult of death has become the ‘world’ religion is doomed to fail as the evil that it is. The white race isn’t doomed, unless it wants to continue to deny reality for its wishful, magical thinking religion of death.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          ‘Survival of the fittest is not how it works.’

          But you just described exactly how survival of the fittest works.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          ‘The corollary of this is that every successful form is fruitful and multiplies and does so by altering the local (chemical) environment to enhance its own and its offspring’s reproduction and survival.’

          This is done at the expense of the competition. That which does it best is the fittest.

        • And yes, it’s a guarantor of life’s continuance too perfect to be unplanned.

        • …and they not only alter their environment, they also alter themselves as needed. Another of God’s amazing ideas.

        • DirkH says:

          leftinflagstaff says:
          May 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm
          “And yes, it’s a guarantor of life’s continuance too perfect to be unplanned.”

          Well it is not perfect. And, is it BETTER or WORSE than in the past? Meaning – DOES it continue?

          Science would have us believe in upwards development. Yes, I see that in technology, a product of our mind. But for lifeforms? Have they not been bigger, more ferocious, more plentiful?

          Is life fizzling out? You have to put the belief in automatic up-development on its head, if ONLY to gain a perspective on the prevailing propaganda.

          Have not all existing body plans sprung into existence all at once, in the precambrian explosion; and from there, some went extinct, but no new ones came into existence. Why is that so if evolution is supposed to produce new things?

          The most striking example was told by Dr Veith, a South African creationist living in Germany and holding lectures in German; he compared life span of people mentioned in the Old Testament and sorted them from past to present and included modern lifespan and gets a kind of exponential decay curve.

          This is exactly what you expect from an accumulation of defects.

          Most people will reject this picture of increasing defects as too gloomy. I understand the psychological reason for that. But genetic decline chimes in perfectly with the visible decay of once civilized countries into madness. As IQ drops so societies break down.

          I want to paint this picture as a possible prediction for an investment strategy; the anti-vision to the common “Blue Skies” narrative.

          COLLAPSE is NORMAL. It’s what you should EXPECT.

        • Latitude says:

          Dirk, I have to agree with you on this…
          Mostly it’s our own doing though. We have eliminated natural selection….

        • cdquarles says:

          Leftin, that’s not fully so. What I have described is survival of the fit enough, for now. What can ‘fittest’ possibly mean without a qualifier? Underlying biological life, in a material form, is chemistry and energy. Living things must simply be good enough to reproduce themselves. The DNA and RNA transcribing mechanism contains, via some fascinating aspects of chemistry, an error detection and correction ability; but this can be poisoned.

          People think of mutations as being harmful. Mostly they are neutral. Some may be harmful right now but beneficial later. Some may be beneficial right now but harmful later. Without the constant *natural* genetic engineering provided by God through viruses, I wonder just how fruitful life would be in the face of known unknown and unknown unknown conditions that must be survived, in the future (for physical forms as we know them), one hour at a time.

        • cdquarles says:

          To me, Lat, we have not changed natural selection. We are just as natural as the rest of the biological world. We have changed it somewhat, by giving some additional direction. Being made in the image of God, that ability to add a direction to the selection is what God gave us and required of us to ‘Dress the garden and keep it’ as well as enhance its productivity.

        • cdquarles says:

          Argh. read that as *not eliminated* natural selection. I could also add that our restoration of sunk carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere is a good thing, for me may be able to preserve life where the previous chemical actions of biological life, without us, was going to doom it to destruction before God may have willed that part.

        • Latitude says:

          cdquarles says:
          May 18, 2016 at 3:01 pm

          To me, Lat, we have not changed natural selection.
          ====
          I think we’re there….

          http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/18/478212837/in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human

        • Could be. Could be not. ‘They’ could be species, or the individual members of it. No doubt that the latter is intended to die.

        • DirkH says:

          “I think we’re there….

          http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/18/478212837/in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human

          Hey, that’ll make a great Marvel movie; that will a few years later be called “prescient”.

        • DirkH says:

          I don’t think “Pablo Ross” is a good name for a mad scientist supervillain, though. More like “von Ross”; and Pablo, that’s right out. Maybe Hermann von Ross.

          He’s gotta hire a PR agency.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        ‘Have they not been bigger, more ferocious, more plentiful?’

        Bigger to smaller, land-dwelling to ocean-delling…more plentiful, less so…visa-versa…longer & shorter lifespans. 8 billion humans living to a few hundred years today? Not good for our species.

        Changing in response to their need and their environment’s ability to support them.

        And the most ferocious species ever is the most dominant one today. Us.

        I think you could argue that a good definition of Evolution is: the counter to genetic decline. And is perceived decline actually a negative in relation to the current conditions?

        And it seems kind of a stretch to relate it to societal decline. Human societies tend to move further and further from natural processes.

        • DirkH says:

          Procreation is entirely natural. Inheriting more defects than the parent generation has not stopped.
          Viability is dropping, only artificially helped with technology. The price is health care cost explosion. As I said above: Technology just might save us as genetic quality drops and drops.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Procreation is one of the few areas where human lifestyle has not become artificial. But even it has been corrupted by the unnatural effect of abortion. I just think there’s too many unnatural factors we place into the equation to blame it all on a natural waning of viability.

          We still have species several hundred million years old.

        • DirkH says:

          “We still have species several hundred million years old.”

          THis all hinges on the acceptance of the carbon/uranium dating methods and loads of assumptions.
          Do you remember how they developed the idea that Earth is x billion years old? It only came about after they became convinced the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor. Any other fuel source would not suffice for that kind of age. So the idea of a billions year old Earth is maybe 50 years old. Since that time they have done a lot to outfit their Weltanschauung. But, it is a very young opinion.

          The genetic evidence completely shakes up the applecart in my opinion. I have continued to collect links here.
          https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/neo-darwinian-evolution-doesnt-work

        • DirkH says:

          leftinflagstaff says:
          May 18, 2016 at 3:10 pm
          “I just think there’s too many unnatural factors we place into the equation to blame it all on a natural waning of viability.”

          I agree with that – current perversion has been observed in waves in the past, followed by spiritual reawakenings – as the sinners waste their existences and the believers are the survivors (it always works like that. Now ain’t that funny.)

          THe genetic decline is a long drawn out story over millennia – but NOT over millions of years…. it runs out of survivors long before that.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          cd- ‘What I have described is survival of the fit enough, for now. What can ‘fittest’ possibly mean without a qualifier?’

          Well, yes…the equation has no end. A definitive ‘fitness’ is rightfully meaningless. A final fitness would seem to be a species’ death sentence. Capability, or ‘degree of fitness’ to last past the next line in the equation may be a better way to look at it. Some can, some can’t. The constant battle is to determine who can.

          Sometime in the future, if humans are no longer around to cause effect, my neighborhood will almost certainly be nothing but Ponderosa Pine. They already are by far the most dominant tree species, in size and numbers. Now, we trim them, cut them down, artificially add other species. Rake and remove their needles. Without our influence they would become so numerous no other tree could exist. Blocking sunlight, hogging the limited available water, coating the ground so thick with their needles, that almost nothing could take old.

          The Ponderosa are currently the fittest in my environment, and most likely someday the only survivor.

          Dirk:

          ‘But, it is a very young opinion.’

          That’s really our entire issue with this. All human opinion is very young. Infantile. We haven’t existed long enough to know these answers. Will we be fit enough, long enough, to stay around and learn the answers? Not looking like it.

        • cdquarles says:

          How old is that article, Lat? I remember people creating mouse-human hybrid cell cultures and embryos in the late 1980s.

        • Latitude says:

          May 18, 2016

        • DirkH says:

          “That’s really our entire issue with this. All human opinion is very young. Infantile. We haven’t existed long enough to know these answers. ”

          The Bible ain’t. And, I found a psalm perfectly in line with the theory of genetic decline.
          (And with thermodynamics)
          https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/neo-darwinian-evolution-doesnt-work/comment-page-1/#comment-99

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        I would love a pig pancreas if it cured my Diabetes. Hell, I’ve been putting pig in me to help stay alive for decades, at breakfast. 😊

        • cdquarles says:

          They tried that and it didn’t work without immune suppressants, thus the mouse-human hybrid cultures and also the stem cell stuff, whether ‘adult’, which typically is placental or bone marrow derived or embryonic, which is much more problematic.

  25. Latitude says:

    I think this is very funny!!….

  26. Latitude says:

    I don’t understand this bathroom bill thing at all…
    Women are supposed to accept some guy in their restroom that identifies as a woman….

    Well, why not just have guys in the guys restroom accept some other guy with an identity crisis?

    ….and visa versa

  27. gator69 says:

    Since when is Islam a race?

    • Me says:

      Since libertards\socalist\communist\progressives that can’t differ from discrimation from bigetry from raceism from sexism from what a phobia is!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s