Republican utopia is already realized in Tennessee!

Now here’s Tea Party rapture on Earth.  Firefighters watch a man’s home burn to the ground and absolutely refuse to lift a goddamn finger to help Mr. Gene Cranick.  What makes Cranick unworthy of assistance?  He forgot to pay a $75 fee for firefighting services.

Republican Jesus rejoices!

Generations of family keepsakes and photos are now ashes.  Mr. Cranick only was covered with insurance to pay off his mortgage, but not enough for a new home.

Cranick pleaded he be allowed to pay firefighters anything if they’d only help.

They didn’t respond until the homeowner’s neighbor called because Cranick’s fire spread to the adjacent property.  Then “emergency responders” watched Cranick’s home being destroyed by flames.  Cranick lost a couple of family pets in the blaze. 😦


56 thoughts on “Laissez Faire, Mother Fuckers!

  1. Welp, this is what firefighting was like when it first started out.

    “London suffered great fires in 798, 982, 989, and above all in 1666 (Great Fire of London). The Great Fire of 1666 started in a baker’s shop on Pudding Lane, consumed about two square miles (5 km²) of the city, leaving tens of thousands homeless. Prior to this fire, London had no organized fire protection system. Afterwards, insurance companies formed private fire brigades to protect their clients’ property. Insurance brigades would only fight fires at buildings the company insured. These buildings were identified by fire insurance marks. ”


    See, the thing is, private companies never have the public good as their primary goal.

    Just sayin’.

  2. Hmm…taking into account the logic of the firefighters in this storyline…thank goodness an Amber Alert hasn’t be reduced to the following:

    An Amber Alert should only be posted if the concerned/grieving parent(s), Guardian(s), etc. have paid a set fee–otherwise the young innocent child’s fate/life lays in limbo?! (WTF? Just say it ain’t so….)

    Just when I thought common decency trumped money…

    Sorry for lil’ rant there, Melissa. Hope all is well. Have a great week!

  3. As terrible as this is, I really don’t see this as a tea party issue. Having lived in the county yrs. ago, I had to pay fire dues. If you don’t pay, you don’t get coverage. Why would anyone pay if they knew they’d get help no matter what? When you live in an unincorporated area, that’s the way it works, and it has nothing to do with politics. I’m sure the firefighters took no pleasure in watching the place burn, but their only obligation was to keep the neighbors’ places from burning. This may sound heartless, but people have to take responsibility for their own actions, or inactions.
    I eagerly await the vitriol I see coming my way…lol!!

    • No vitriol here. Tea partiers are libertarians. This is libertarianism. People would pay because they’re patriots, they respect first responders. This is a small step away from letting old people freeze to death bc they didn’t pay their electric bill. For people who hate “social darwinism” they sure are good at letting survival of the fittest/richest/most republican play out in the lives of the poor…or in this case, the forgetful.

      • Actually, WriteChic, the freezing-old-people-to-death has already been done. Go search The Cookie’s blog for the story, but if memory serves, it happened in a little town in Michigan. An old guy living by himself started losing his faculties and stopped paying his electric bill, so after a while, the electric company cut him off in the dead of winter. By time anyone thought to check on him in person he was frozen solid. Nice, huh?


  4. It’s not a tea party issue. It’s a moral issue. It’s a human issue.

    And just where do these people draw the line? They let four animals burn to death in that house, and from what Cranick said on the Olbermann show last night they let a barn with horses burn before this. If there had been children in the house, would they have let it burn? Old people? Anyone? Black people? Jews? Atheists? For seventy-five fucking dollars…

    This inaction was immoral, it was inhuman (or perhaps all too human in these times), it was disgusting and sickening beyond belief. Morally these firefighters and the political apparatus that supports them are on the same level as the concentration camp guards that watched Jews burn, as the assassins and murderers of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, as the American torturers of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram. These ‘firefighters’ should be cast with the worst that humanity has to offer.

    As for Ms. Welch, if that’s what you believe, if your moral and ethical senses tell you this is okay, then you deserve to join the firefighters.

    • It is a human issue. Shelter is fundamental. The action is immoral by strict or loose ethical interpretation.

      People can believe what they want about the event, but they can’t claim to have a stake in ethics or love (as presented by any great teacher in Western or Eastern traditions) if they believe this was a-okay honky-dory…because then they would be big, fat liars or morbidly self-deceived.

  5. hmmm…”the worst that humanity has to offer”…I’ve been called a lot of things, but I believe that’s a first! And “a big, fat liar or morbidly self-deceived” on top of it!

    So what would you have them do? Go ahead and put out the fire? And then what about the next time it happened? And the next? You all seem to have a lot to say about the morality, blah, blah, blah, but I didn’t see one suggestion as to what a good alternative would be. You’re kidding yourself if you think people would pay for reasons of patriotism. If they knew they would get help anyway, I can guarantee you the majority would not pay. We who live in cities pay taxes for fire coverage. In unincorporated areas, people don’t pay taxes for it, they have dues. Should they be entitled to protection if they don’t pay? Then why should we pay our taxes for it? This isn’t a moral issue. The man had shelter, he chose (whether by accident or on purpose) not to pay his dues. I feel pretty safe in believing that if human life were involved, the firefighters would not have stood idly by and let someone burn to death. And while I generally agree most of the conservatives are the party of “I’ve got mine, now you get yours”, I don’t think this falls into that category.
    Sorry if my point of view pisses you all off. I’m usually pretty liberal in my thinking, but not on this issue.

    • > In unincorporated areas, people don’t pay taxes for it, they have dues.

      Why? Who do they pay property taxes to? Could not the property taxes be raised by the exact amount of the dues in order to cover fire protection?

    • Vicki, I was strictly addressing the assertion (It’s okay that Mr. Cranick’s house burned down with firefighters looking on) in general terms, and not you specifically. I do not know the nuances that lead you to think what you think and was not willing to fill in the blanks.

      I’m not interested in a “rational” argument for a world that justifies the “okayness” of firefighters looking on while a home burns. Those who make such an argument are not the people I want as neighbors or elected officials. God forbid I ever be in a situation where MY home burns and *I* didn’t pay my bill because I’m 75 and senile.

      There are moments that put individuals on the horns of a dilemma. Do I act obediently in accordance with county policy and watch a man’s home burn or do I answer a higher law one that ought to be written on hearts or consciences, that we help our neighbors, fellow citizens, fellow human beings if we can.

      If you see this as not moral, you’re not using English in the same way that the average person does.

      It is absolutely, inarguably a moral issue, right down to the first historical definitions of ethics. Do unto others…Jesus; don’t do unto others…Confucius; do not harm in your occupation (actively or passively)…Buddha; love the stranger as yourself…Leviticus; mind your karma…Hinduism; be compassionate…Taoism; Muhammad condemned contracts that exploit. What is the right life to live and does it benefit the world; Socrates.

      Is the world better because cold-hearted mother fuckers let an old man’s house burn down? It’s not. It’s meaner, crueler, more void of goodness.

    • P.S. Vicki, I don’t believe for a minute that YOU are a person who would stand by and let something bad happen to someone if you could help. That’s my sense from your comments since you’ve been on my site. I just want that to be clear.

  6. Okay, Vicki, if moral arguments won’t sway you, how about monetary? After all, won’t it be harder for this guy to get current with his fire dues if he just lost his life possessions and house in a fire?


    • guess he should have thought about that before he “forgot” to pay his dues. seems to me that’s one bill he should make a point of paying. he knows it comes due once a yr., he has a whole yr. to save for it, that’s less than $1.50 a wk. some things you just make an effort to pay, and playing the odds on your house NOT catching fire is not what i’d call a safe bet.
      the fire district i once lived in assessed a judgement on people who didn’t pay their dues…would be interesting to know how it works where he lives.
      don’t any of you think he should take SOME responsibility for any of this?
      i’m not a cold-hearted person, and i feel sorry for the guy, but come on…

  7. But Vicki, you’re assuming that this guy deliberately blew off paying his bill. Haven’t you ever forgotten to pay a bill? Besides, doesn’t not putting a fire for one homeowner who didn’t pay put the other homeowners who did pay in jeopardy? Following your logic, no firemen should ever put out forest fires, because it’s not like Smokey The Bear is current on his fire account…

    Type Writer AKA Sheldon Robertson

    • no, i’m not assuming he forgot to pay…he really could have. i’m just suggesting that he bears a little responsibility. also, as you heard or read, the firefighters did contain the blaze where it threatened others’ property. and comparing forest fires to this is like comparing apples to oranges, IMHO.

      • he does bear some responsibility, but that doesn’t excuse the officials of the town who didn’t allow the firefighters to put out the fire before it became an inferno.

        you know, i remember being a young single mother, living from hand to mouth. i had to decide whether to pay a bill or feed my kid. i wasn’t spending money on clothes or anything unnecessary, and i had a job and worked plenty of overtime. if i had been living in that town, i honestly don’t know if i could have afforded to pay that $75. does that mean that my house should burn down so that my situation would be even worse than before?

        if the firefighters had acted immediately, the fire on mr. cranick’s property would have resulted in a little bit of scorched grass. it never would have reached the house. if the firefighters had put out the fire, it would have cost the county very little. whatever the cost was could have been charged to mr. cranick. if he didn’t pay it, then they could put a lien on his property. that would have made the most sense, economically and morally. they could even fine him to discourage other people from not paying for the service beforehand.

        if you want to talk about fairness, where’s the fairness in mr. cranick’s paying taxes that went toward paying for the firetrucks? is it fair to the neighbor who now has to live next to an eyesore?

        i have to wonder what’s next. do we leave people to die, because they can’t afford an ambulance fee?

  8. Well said, nonnie. The idea that the people who are supposed to be ensuring the safety of our lives and properties won’t lift a finger to help us if we’re not up to date on our bills is simply immoral and absurd.


  9. I would assume that the writers who agree with the firefighters and the town are most likely Christian or lay some claim to following Christian values, this being the United States. They seem to have forgotten the core value of their religion as expressed in the story of the good Samaritan. But never mind that.

    Welch talks about personal responsibility, placing the onus for the destruction of Cranick’s house on him because he forgot to pay $75 (his claim). She sees the result as a good outcome, no matter her protestations that she feels sorry for him because his house burned. She’s decided that her judgment of Cranick supersedes the basic morality of helping someone in need (and never mind the animals that burned to death).

    One might also assume that since her judgment of others’ personal responsibility for their lives is paramount in her moral choices that she would stand by while a gang of teen thugs poured gasoline on a homeless alcoholic and burned him to death. After all, he is responsible for being an alcoholic and living on the street, right?

    How far down that road should we go?

    And if you want to avoid the uncomfortable moral issue, and also avoid considering that that house was not just a house, but was a man’s goddam home, then by all means measure everything in dollars and cents. How much is a home worth, as opposed to the house comprising the home? And while counting dollars and cents, count the insurance costs and the rise in premiums for everyone should this behavior become the norm. Count the devaluing of the properties around Cranick’s home. And by the way, how much were the lives of those three dogs and that cat worth?

    Ms. Welch presents as one of those people who wouldn’t cross the street to save someone’s life unless she first worked out a compensation agreement.

    Just as Atlas Shrugged is a piece of crap, so too is Ms. Welch’s morality.

    As for the firefighters, they made a moral choice, the same choice other people who do institutional evil, indeed, any evil, have done. They chose to do evil by refusing to act, rather than acting for the good. They’ve earned a justified condemnation as belonging among the worst humanity has to offer.

    • No vitriol? Really? Now my morality is a “piece of crap”! lol! Ric, you make a lot of assumptions about me, someone about whom you know nothing. First, I’m an atheist, so your statement about forgetting my core Christian values is invalid. Second, I never stated that the outcome of this situation was good, of course it’s horrible. Third, you assume that my judgement of others’ personal responsibility is paramount in my moral choices, which is not the case at all. I sincerely doubt that you or anyone else can say they have made every moral choice in their life without first at least considering every detail and implication of that choice. You seem to see the issue as strictly black and white, a morality issue, while I see it also as having shades of grey. What if another house on the other side of town (whose owner had paid their dues) had also caught fire at the same time, and there was only 1 truck? Which fire should they have fought? What would have been the “moral” decision in such a situation?
      I’m sorry you seem to feel the need to attack me personally. I myself think everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and I don’t feel the need to attack them personally. Remember, opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one.

      • So being an atheist (and I am a full bore atheist) invalidates the idea of the good samaritan?

        As for knowing anything about you, that’s not the point. I know what you said here, I know the policy you approve of, and that tells me enough about you to consider you reprehensible to some degree. I know you by your choices.

        Is it personal? Not in the sense that I know more about you than you presented in your original statement. But if you came to my door and I knew these were your views, I would never invite you into my home unless you were in dire need of shelter or care. The view you hold is morally, intellectually, and emotionally repulsive, and you have held it out as your representation of yourself. So yes, within the confines of this argument, this blog post and comment stream, it is personal. So what? You represented yourself as holding a repulsive view. Am I to comment by saying that’s okay, it’s just a viewpoint, so what? You would allow evil and harm to occur, for money, and hold that to be a morally correct position. It is not. It’s disgusting. We undoubtedly will not agree. I don’t care.You chose to represent yourself with that view. It’s a view that should be attacked. Often and hard. And if the attack hits you personally, maybe that’s as it should be.

        You approve of the process that allowed Cranick’s house to burn. It follows that you, despite your protestation, approve of the outcome. You can’t support a process that must lead to that particular conclusion, and then deny that you approve of the result. You’re trying to have it both ways. It’s repulsive.

        This incident can be cast as black and white. Cranick didn’t pay. So by rule firefighters would let his home and his pets burn. They chose to follow a rule. There was no other house burning on the other side of town There is no question about the number of fire trucks. The personnel and equipment were at Cranick’s house. They chose the action of not acting, of letting the house and animals burn.

        In the real world, your example of one truck and two fires wouldn’t hold water, so to speak, as virtually every town has arrangements with neighboring fire departments for coverage in such cases. But accepting your premise, the only answer is that they should do the best they could, considering all the factors, the distance, the wind direction, the equipment available, manpower, and so on, but if the basis of their decision is an arbitrary fee, that would be flawed and morally unacceptable. That becomes the same issue we are arguing.

        Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but you can’t seriously expect to opine a morally repulsive position and get praised everywhere for it. Go play with the conservatives and the tea party crowd. They’ll love ya. I will not.

        • Your assumptions of me based on a few comments are so far off the mark that they’re both laughable and repulsive. I neither look for nor expect approval from you nor anyone else. I thought this forum was a place for people to express their opinions, not to be attacked for them.
          You need to chill before you stroke out.

          • Had you expressed your opinion as an argument for the purpose of inviting rational discussion, that would be one thing. You did not. You expressed what you believe. What you believe in this instance is ugly. It is your opinion and you are welcome to it and to express it. And anyone is welcome to express their opinion of it and of you as you represent yourself. I don’t care what you feel about expecting approval: it’s not relevant.

            As for chilling out, people who believe as you do, at least on this sort of issue, are quite chilling enough, and have earned passionate disagreement. And frankly, if I’m going to stroke out, I’d be quite happy for it to happen while I’m attacking your sort of thinking. Hopefully I will have paid my hospital fees and won’t be thrown out on the sidewalk.

            • Silly me!!! I thought expressing one’s opinion in this forum WAS an invitation to rational discussion, or an invitation for anyone else (even you) to express their opinion of others’ views, as you have done today ad nauseum.
              Re. the relevancy of my expecting approval, you need to go back and re-read your voluminous and repetitive verbiage. I was addressing YOUR remark about expressing my “morally repulsive opinion” and expecting to be “praised everywhere for it”. All I expect is a respectful give and take, not a personal attack.
              I get your drift…I’m not worthy to walk this earth. Who died and left you king?
              As for me, I’ve spent WAY too much time today addressing your rants, so I won’t be responding again. Humorless ideologues like you need to get over themselves.

              • Humorless? Oh my. And all this time I’ve thought it pretty funny how you presented your belief in an illogical, irrational, ugly process that guarantees a bad and deadly result and defended it valiantly against all comers. That’s quite a hoot.

                And even funnier is that you expect respect for it.

                As for who died and left me king, I’m pretty sure he abdicated from the planet you live on. I’ll have to check my kingship documents.

                I’m sure you think of yourself as a decent human being. Maybe you are. So what? You promote a belief that is harmful. I’d have to assume that if you had to power to do it, you would implement it, leading to more harm. You’re apparently immune to the reasonable and logical arguments against that belief that many have expressed here, and elsewhere.

                All the rest would be blah blah blah. So I won’t waste any more time on you either.

  10. And by the way, you can’t assume that the firefighters would act to save someone trapped in the house. You can’t assume they would know someone was trapped or overcome by smoke or unable to help themselves. If Cranick had not been there and someone was incapacitated in the house, how would the firefighters know?

    And think about them very likely knowing that the dogs were trapped, because it’s unlikely the dogs would have been silent. Perhaps we can safely assume they heard the howls of fear and pain of the dogs, and they just sat there in their shiny red trucks and listened to them burn to death.

    They let the dogs burn, they may have let horses burn in an earlier incident. That’s not really very far from letting people burn. And no one can say it wouldn’t happen, unless of course they knew absolutely nothing about human history and human behavior.

  11. glenn beckerheads are all over this in defense of houses burning down, never thinking for a moment they could be in this position, because they have bought into goldline. the lds mormons should spend that millions of dollars in public relations on controlling glenn beck, then maybe the lds mormons would not have a public relations problems.

    • Hi, cherryshills. Thanks for your comment. I saw another Christian site compare Cranick’s situation to the parable of the 10 virgins. The point was to say the homeowner got what he deserved. 😦

  12. You know, I’m trying to put myself in the position of the fire chief or whoever was in charge of making this decision. I’m trying to put myself in the position of one of the average Joes on the hoses.

    Having been raised by a staunchly, even (more recently) rabidly, conservative right-wing “you pay your bills or take the consequences without whining” set of parents, I can understand (from an analytical viewpoint, mind you, not a compassionate one) the chain of decisions that led to this man’s home being destroyed and pets being left to die. I can see how Fact A and Fact B led to Situation C, and Condition D contributed to Decision E, and so on.

    But I keep coming back to the guys at the hoses. The guy making the “yes/no and that’s final” decision. I can see how it could all play out on paper, but those guys on the truck, standing there: they’re the ones who are confusing me.

    There are a few people I hate, with a deep and abiding, burning passion. They are people who, and I say this after years of reflection and consideration, would enrich my existence if they would simply fall over dead. And I could not, physically WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF standing outside their home next to a fire engine and watching their house burn to the ground, and hearing their pets suffer and die horribly.

    Small-town America is world-famous for “taking care of its own.” That’s the argument against urban living – in the cities, you don’t know who your neighbors are, you can fall through the cracks too easily. Small towns are famed for pulling together to help people out: Someone’s kid needs a liver transplant, suddenly everyone’s having a bake sale to raise money for it.

    I can’t help but think that the firefighters and even the fire marshall would be among the first to chip in $5, $10, $20 to help out someone whose house burned down because the FD didn’t get there in time, or because the fire spread too quickly, or because no one was home to call for help. I’m convinced, deep in my soul, that at least SOME of the firefighters and their families would be stepping up to the plate – even if it were someone in a different town. A friend of a friend, a cousin’s distant relative, a neighbor’s high-school buddy.

    How is it that none of them said, “Look, *I* will cover his $75, right now let’s just step up and HELP before it’s too late”?

    As an atheist, I also wonder how many of those firefighters went to church the following Sunday and put money in the offering plate, and never thought twice about it. Whitened sepulchers, indeed.

    • You got it, nail on the head, Elayne. But you may have missed the part where Cranick, and also his neighbor, said they would pay the fee, would pay whatever it took to get the firemen, so-called, to put out the damned fire, would pay on the spot. It didn’t matter. The sick bastards let it burn.

      (BTW, ‘whited sepulchers’. You know, ash colored.)

      • I didn’t watch the video (much prefer to read my news) but I did see the comment that Cranick offered to be allowed to pay. And you know, I can even understand them disregarding THAT – again, where “understand” means “follow the chain of reasoning,” not “agree with the chain of reasoning.” I mean, a pessimist’s viewpoint might well be, “Sure, you’re promising to pay right now, but next week what’s gonna happen? It’ll be all ‘oh, I have to buy new clothes’ and ‘all my food was destroyed’ and we still won’t have our $75.”

        In fact, I’m dealing with something very similar with my ex-husband right now, where I succumbed to his sob-story and agreed to something for our son that leaves me stuck with the bill: For all his tears and sobbing on the phone when he promised to pay, he has apparently changed his mind, and has since told me (after I signed the contract) that he can’t afford it and won’t be paying. (Odd, how he still gets credit for the gift, though… but I digress.)

        So I can even understand where Cranick’s promises might not hold much water with the firefighters. But I’m talking about the firefighters themselves taking responsibility. I guess, to draw a very loose comparison, if I’m a doctor and someone’s having a heart attack. Maybe that person can’t pay for services rendered, no matter how much they’re promising me now. And maybe the friend standing next to them, pledging his own paycheck, is going to say “Legally you can’t touch me” when the dust has cleared. But *I* have the power to say, “*I* choose to do this and shoulder the cost of it MYSELF.” Then, if I get paid, bonus.

        I know there are other things at play here – insurance being a good example; if they HAD tried to put out the fire and one of the firefighters had been injured, would that firefighter have been covered?

        But if I had been one of those firefighters, I’d have chosen the 5-15% risk of an injury not covered by worker’s comp, or even the risk of being fired, over the 100% risk of standing there watching that man’s house burn and animals die without lifting a finger. I can’t figure out how their minds work, that apparently none of them did.

    • I wonder if there’s some kind of insurance consideration, if the firefighters wouldn’t have been covered if the person in question hadn’t signed up for fire protection.

      • there are other considerations, too. what about the time delay, because the 911 operators have to make sure that you’ve paid your 75 bucks before sending out the firefighters? a few seconds delay can make a huge difference when you’re dealing with fire. what if there’s a tenant who believes the landlord has paid the 75 bucks? should the tenant be penalized, because the landlord was lax?

        what pays for the fire trucks and the salaries of the firefighters? if it’s property taxes, and people who don’t pay the 75 bucks is not entitled to services, then why should they be forced to pay for the equipment and salaries?

        what if the firefighters, as in the case here, refuse to put out the fire, and there’s a sudden gust of wind, and the neighbor’s house catches on fire and there’s a lot of damage. in this case, the neighbor’s house wasn’t, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. who is responsible for the damages to the neighbor’s house? is the owner of the house where the fire started responsible, or is the fire department for allowing the fire to get out of control?

        what if it’s a case of arson? should the victims of crime be penalized twice by allowing their possessions to be completely destroyed, because they were a victim of a crime?

        i wonder what the insurance companies would do. we all know how they point their fingers and say that someone else is liable so that they won’t have to pay.

        • Good points, all of those. This is why “the public good” and “market capitalism” don’t really jive.

          On a separate topic — no “Shakes the Clown” parody, then, nonnie?

        • Good points all.

          And as someone who’s had to deal with more than her share of incompetent bookkeeping, what if I SEND my payment in, and they cash the check, and credit my next-door neighbor’s account by mistake? Or the guy down the road with a similar name to mine? Or simply forget to apply it to my account at all?

          I spent 20 minutes on the phone with my mortgage company just TODAY for something similar – they say my payment is late. I sent my payment in, and have the canceled check to prove it. But when they processed the check, they, for whatever reason, applied it all to the escrow account. In my case, it’s just getting nasty phone calls and dealing with irritation – what if it were something where, as Nonnie said, every second counts?

          And frankly, I’d like to know what’s to keep the firefighters from using this as their own little bully-market. “Don’t want to pay your $75, huh? It’d sure be a shame if I were to drop this lighted match, wouldn’t it…” Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t even think such things of anyone, but I really and truly have to wonder if there was not an element of “setting an example” involved in this. I would dearly love to know the statistics: How many OTHER homeowners in the area had not paid as of a week before this event, compared to how many suddenly found the money to pay after it..

    • Hi, Elayne. I appreciate your contribution. I wondered maybe if there was some diffusion of responsibility among the firefighters.

      I read yesterday that the county is looking to expand it’s “Pay to Spray” firefighting services.

      It’d be great if Cranick had a bulldog insurance company that sues the county for the payout. They may have a case since there seems to be an arbitrary standard for putting out fires for people who haven’t paid the fee.

  13. C’mon. Firemen are first providers; they’re covered even when they’re off-duty. These guys were probably afraid their money-conscious political bosses were gonna fire for not toeing the moneyline…


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s