Mining Emotions: What Makes Us So Invincible?

In 21st Century Culture, Millennial Generation on November 17, 2014 at 1:30 AM

This article was posted exactly 4 years ago, October 2010. It’s worth revisiting….

Originally posted by Remittance Girl here , we are asking what is happening to us today due to a mass media and technological revolution.

Why is it disturbing to see the wife of a trapped miner waiting for her husband to come up in the rescue pod? Because instead of being able to privately experience the horror and emotion, she must experience it publicly. Worse, she is under a microscope with reporters commenting on whether or not her reaction is appropriate. Filming her every move, we then, as an audience, consume it and the effective desensitization remains arguably indicative of a serious shift in our cultural and social AND personal interactions.

Noticing how social interactions and boundaries are not just erased, but realizing how they are being re-shaped as I write this blog post, is the subject of what will be an ongoing discussion. Think about the massive changes that have happened in how we live our day to day lives. How we share information and experience being human has undergone a dramatic shift. We, as individuals and as communities, are expected and encouraged to bare our souls over the internet, on reality television, thru social networks, and more, in a manner that may be unprecedented in human evolution. There is no respect for privacy anymore but at the same time, we sit in front of a screen in private viewing another person’s public exposure.

This emotional voyeurism has taken the place of experiencing emotions, further distancing us from the most natural element of humanity. With so many platforms for distribution and easy-to-use devices for user-generated content, it’s like a virus has infected all of us to such a degree that many of us find it disturbing. But it is hard to identify WHY or WHAT it is that disturbs us, so we do not know how to communicate it and thus, many remain silent.

Is it the fault of the media for producing it or the fault of the public for consuming it?

Very few people recognize how the law of unintended consequences works across the course of human history and most importantly, how we are NOT immune. Often, our technology far advances our tactical ability and as a result, it takes years for cultures to either catch up or recover from the profound effects. Compare today with the age following Gutenberg’s printing press and the introduction of moveable type to Europeans in the 15th and 16th Centuries. Think about all of the changes that occurred due to the spread of information: The Christian Reformation, Scientific Revolution…

Now consider the Information Age of Media and Technology, for all its good but unintended consequences. It is a valid hypothesis to argue that we DO underestimate how our own brain functions are being effected:

Discovered in the early 1990s, Mirror Neurons are revolutionizing the way Neuroscientists understand human neurophysiology and brain function. This could do for Neuropsychology what DNA did for Biology. It also explains why Remittance Girl poses a valid argument towards how this dynamic in media technology today may be damaging us. Most certainly, we spend more time in front of a screen than in a social setting or among a group of people. We experience human emotion more frequently via television, photographs, social networks, mobile devices and the internet as opposed to being physically present.


Mirror Neurons are “…a special class of brain cells that fire not only when an individual performs an action, but also when the individual observes someone else make the same movement… Now, however, many have come to believe that we understand others not by thinking, but by feeling. For mirror neurons appear to let us “simulate” not just other people’s actions, but the intentions and emotions behind those actions.”

As a student of theatrical theory and practice throughout history, I have been concerned with the shift from collective experience to a more isolated, much less kinesthetic way of experiencing life. Muscles atrophy. And what if the brain does something similar?

Then, yes, we are becoming desensitized. Imaginations grow dull. Attention spans shorten. We develop differently, communicate differently and if we are not careful to recognize the evidence, what will be the consequence? What, if anything, can we do to adapt to this changing environment? Charles Darwin said it best: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

We are far from invincible. Unfortunately, we are extremely vulnerable to the influence of change. Where we are today is significant. I just can’t tell you why because I don’t know. The one thing I do know, however, is that history has shown us time and time again, zeitgeist dilutes our ability to reason and understand what is happening around us.

What do you think new media platforms are doing to us? What are the possible dangers? What are the things that disturb you and why? What important social dynamics are we losing and what are we gaining? How is our language changing? Or is this all a bunch of nonsense compared to more important things like, Lindsay Lohan or Teabaggers?

There’s no right or wrong answer. And the discussion is far from over. I welcome your comments, as does Remittance Girl. Let’s pay attention and use this technology to learn from each other, not indulge in exploitation of one another.

  1. […] Archives. “The Media Eating Its Head,” may be the first, building up to articles like MINING EMOTIONS: WHAT MAKES US SO INVINCIBLE?   or 21st CENTURY STORY TELLING AND ART: PART […]


  2. Fantastic post ladies! It should be said I hope I’m not the only sick of America’s perceived superiority over such advances, yet it was indeed a oilman from Texas who helped dig a tunnel for the miners to come out and NASA who ultimately created the capsule. It was the spirit and ingenuity of the Chileans, and their foreman who designed and instructed everyone how an exit would be possible. The point is this entire story should not only be a cautionary tale of bad mining practices but a triumph of human spirit everyone worldwide should rally upon


  3. […] Mining Emotions: What Makes Us So Invincible? « GidgetWidget 2.0 […]


  4. This is a great post, as is the original you link to by Remittance Girl. They were very thought-provoking for me. I posted a much more in depth explanation of why quoting pieces from each in a blog entry of my own, but really, I hope this discussion never stops. There’s just so much at risk.

    Thank you, GidgetWidget for your insight on the matter.

    P.S. I love your reasoning (and the explanation of it) for the use of “Teabaggers”.


    • Per the “Teabagger” response — thank you. It probably did nothing to change the person whose comment prompted me to spend hours disseminating how it exemplifies the core of what is wrong with the political climate in the US. I hate seeing people act like Pavlovian Dogs whenever they hear politically charged rhetoric.

      Where’s Winston Churchill when you need him?


  5. […] posted by Remittance Girl and responded to by GidgetWidget, but what thought-provoking posts. Not unfamiliar in the message they carry either… Least not […]


    • The following excerpts are from the full response, posted on

      Originally posted by Remittance Girl and responded to by GidgetWidget, but what thought-provoking posts. Not unfamiliar in the message they carry either… Least not to me.

      I’m a relatively introverted member of society by nature. Sometimes I spend months without ever turning on my cable box. The TV is used for DVDs, BlueRay discs, video games, and as a massive monitor for my personal computer, but rarely for the cable box. For this reason there are occasions where people talk about things and I wonder what I missed. Sometimes this includes some pretty serious things, though not as much now that I work in an office with people who are in touch with typical media mediums on a regular basis. A good example though is the Tennessee flooding. I was completely unaware of it until one of my coworkers showed me footage of a temporary school building being swept down what I at first thought was a river. Then he said, “I can’t believe the flooding is that bad in Tennessee. Rog, come look at this school building floating down the interstate!” What a wake up call. I have cousins in Tennessee too.

      At any rate, I’ve been vaguely aware of the miners in Chile, but mostly unaware of intricate details. It’s no surprise though to read the following from two other blog authors’ respective works:

      Remittance Girl~
      However, I watched footage of the 6th miner being hauled up. The close-up of his wife, scared into stone, not breathing, waiting, their reunion, and I thought…. fuck, where is our shame? This is private emotion. Her stricken face shouldn’t be beamed all over the world for our entertainment / vicarious thrill / schadenfreude. What she is feeling is private, and no visualised mediation of it is going to come close to communicating the reality of her experience.

      Why is it disturbing to see the wife of a trapped miner waiting for her husband to come up in the rescue pod? Because instead of being able to privately experience the horror and emotion, she must experience it publicly. Worse, she is under a microscope with reporters commenting on whether or not her reaction is appropriate. Filming her every move, we then, as an audience, consume it and the effective desensitization remains arguably indicative of a serious shift in our cultural and social AND personal interactions.

      The words brush me with the uncomfortable familiarity of guilt. I didn’t see any broadcasts, I didn’t read any news stories, I read about this private, presumably tearful and emotional experience through the words of two other observers. The words draw a picture in my mind, a picture of a woman who weeps as her husband is brought from entrapment and peril safely to her side. What makes it okay to show this footage to the world at large? Is it that we are in celebration for the safe return of the miners?

      For more, please go visit the website and read the rest, entitled, THE WORLD TODAY


  6. Mining Emotions: What Makes Us So Invincible?

    REBLOGGED, October 14, 2010 by Valent Mustamin

    Thank you for posting an excerpt and link to this post on your site, selectedposts.wordpress

    Did you have a comment or did you just like the article? Either way, thanks for reading.


  7. Interesting observation. The media didn’t have anything to report on as a status so they had to focus on the wife. FYI… I don’t watch the news because of nonsense like that and it’s only about the bad stuff in life not anything good. The news can stick it! **Disclaimer… I don’t mean WordPress folks as they give opinions and write stuff that is interesting and tolerable.**


  8. I am really grateful to have the information from this blog.I liked the blog as it has been written,the information  i got from here.


  9. Hi, very interesting article….

    personally, I value the Internet and what it has to offer in terms of creating content and sharing the content (writing, music, photography). But going back to your second paragraph – the minor’s wife’s expressions/actions captured on camera – I think something subtle has ocurred due to media platforms. Hard to explain, but the Web 2.0 revolution in some ways has advanced the Reality Show mentality and encouraged people not to think for themselves. Just my opinion.




  10. Let me say before you read another word, I disagree totally. I am a Zen practicioner, a Secular Franciscan, retired social worker, and computer savvy. I think the HOPE generated by the broadcast from CAMP HOPE planted much more good than a few mirror neurons can since they work in individuals. I am not going to say I liked or do like what we used to call “Future Shock” in the 70s…but I think we are in a position of having to find the good in it and amplify that, rather than take the same old, “Aw! This erodes our individuality!” The time of individual privacy as we knew it is gone. Did I say that was good? No! I did not. Is it real? Yes. Is it good to deal with reality? Yes. Will you be able to turn back the tide of technology, social networking? No.

    I know of a man in Serbia who because of the massive availability of social networking is NO LONGER ISOLATED in his mental depression. I know ten young gay persons who feel less suicidal because they have one another online to support. I know senior citizens who can visit with their grandchildren from their wheelchairs using a web cam, and a computer. It is not all bad, I hate to tell you. It is not all bad this community of information, and openness. The secrecy that allows certain special groups to secretly abuse children is no longer a cloak they can use. The Internet opens as many prison cells and unlocks many more sorrowful hearts and brings them into a stream of interaction, where before was isolation. I am not in agreement that mass coverage of an event like today is bad. IT grows hope!

    Hope is a duty! How do we teach hope better than the way it was done today?

    On the negative side, I know the lives of these minors will never be the same. Many will be washed against the rocks and destroyed by the power and the fame, but ALL MINERS will benefit from the improved attention given to mines and miners. It is too much for the individual at times, but all social change sacrifice by individuals is at great cost.

    Hope is a duty! To say, “Ain’t it awful!” Well, I understand and I would not disagree with the individuals loss of privacy or the making common what was previously private, but I’ve seen secrecy and privacy and the cloak of individuality hide pedophiles and killers. I’ve worked in mental health, psychiatric social work, institutions all my life, and nine out of ten patients would benefit from the increased communications, loss of isolation, and abundance of disease fighting information at their fingertips, many many more benefit than the ones who grow addicted to video games and miss out socially.

    The bridge to the other side is not a bad thing, but bridges are bridgers, the Internet and the mass media are BRIDGES, and if they are filled with common and unsavory stuff most of the time, I challenge this point of view that showing the joy of people celebrating a once in a lifetime event of hope and joy can be negative only. It is not all good, what happened today and in the media, but it is not all bad.

    For every roach seen in the light when it is turned on in the night, thousands still keep their secrets in the dark.

    I suggest you look at the joy in the faces of the children in Chile today!

    This IS rocket science! Life is not what it was a generation ago, not even a year ago. For every crook that has been exposed in the media, I say, good work Internet, good work press.

    I’m sick of the over-exposure of every emotion and scandal by the the media, but I don’t think it is true that that makes all other mass events and mass coverage bad.

    I believe it is better to see than not to see reality.

    If what we see is disturbing, we need to act, not just to complain.

    I propose higher standards for truth and ethics in mass media, not a return to chisels and rocks…and square wheels, the Flintstones, and Amos and Andy.


    • I caution readers not to confuse what I intended as a rumination for a “Scopes Monkey Trial” against evolution.

      Are you disagreeing with me or are you just expanding on the topic? I believe it is the latter. I also believe you make some important observations and take a strong position in the debate and discussion. How this relates specifically in the context of what I wrote, however, remains elusive. I want to clarify my position due to the insinuations in your comment that I deny the positive dynamics of media and technology. Specifically, take it point by point, where I feel the claims purported, dilutes or misinterprets my thesis. Again, I am not arguing against ALL MEDIA, especially the positive dynamics; eg. use of cell phones in Africa as a tremendous resource for progress and example of effective micro-financing.

      I am merely asking whether or not we are aware of BOTH the negative and the positive.

      Your argument is valid in the context of the macromolecule analogous to this topic. However, digressing too far from the context of what I wrote, I think your response was to something else. If what I wrote inspired you to assume this platform for expressing a personal, and emotionally charged, point of view, then awesome.

      I disagree that you are disagreeing with me and agree that it is up to us to adapt to this change, hold higher standards, and not fall into disillusionment. We all must have hope. But each of us, as individuals, are responsible for discovering what this means. By changing our attitudes, making an effort to change for the better, we encourage others to change for the better too.


  11. The first to come here, the site is very good~~


  12. Here in this video you’ll learn about the newly discovered part of the brain know as ‘mirror neurons ‘ and the impact that this brain function has on your life. Mirror neurons have been found to be at the core of how we actually learn and make behavior changes.

    Mirror Neurons:

    Let it flow and let it grow on http://www.MyTree.TV


  13. This is such an interesting post. And thank you for referencing mine. I’m not sure that watching the mediated emotional lives of others PRECLUDES us from having real emotions of our own. After all, in the 14th century, it wasn’t as if villagers didn’t have their noses into each others business. However, witnessing mediated versions means that we don’t have to take the consequences of being actually present. The media acts as our proxy witness to events – but seldom acts as we would. For instance, I remember watching coverage of the New Year’s Day Tsunami, and thinking… god, if I were there, what would I do? How could I help?

    The thing is, if we were there, we WOULD help. We’d help clean up someone’s wrecked house, or take care of their kids while they tried to sort things out. We’d lend a hand – the way good people in a society always have. But the media simply watches – like permanent rubberneckers at every disaster going. And so we get the sense of being present, without in fact being able to act in a constructive way we might do if we really WERE present. Does that make any sense?

    There is no responsible adult to stand there with their hands on their hips and say: ‘Hey, stock gawking and help!’

    Like you, I’m loathe to lay the blame anywhere, or pinpoint exactly how this is affecting our cognitive evolution. But I think it IS affecting us. It IS changing us. And, as you very rightly point out, if we aren’t careful to consider how it’s affecting us as a culture critically, we really are going to be in the shit.


  14. […] Mining Emotions: What Makes Us So Invincible? « GidgetWidget 2.0 […]


  15. W.H.Auden’s verse play ‘The Ascent of F6’ came to mind this week: in that he contrasts the dull lives of ‘Mr and Mrs A’ in soul-less suburbia with the spectacle of a mountain climbing expedition going on while the world holds its breath, glued to radio and newspaper reports. Before television.


    • I remember in middle school, my best friend and I frequently used the phrase, “Not real! Not real!” Denial serves as a “shock-absorber” for the soul, if you will. In this way, it can be a survival mechanism. However, it is a slippery slope and eventually, we have to wake up to the situation if it gets too extreme.

      Recently, someone gave me a comic book, “Where The Wind Blows,” by Raymond Briggs that follows an elderly British couple in the middle of nuclear holocaust. They go about their usual routine, completely disconnected from the catastrophic reality and conversing as if it was just another day. It is powerful in its simplicity, terrifying to contemplate. The film NETWORK is another example of prescient stories about where we are today. In fact, we see evidence across creative manifestations.

      What are some of the pieces that come to mind? A. E. Vogt’s SLAN? Or ATLAS SHRUGGED? I could argue Aeschylus’s ORESTEIA as an example, also. I’d like to hear some feedback on this one so please, share your thoughts…. What literary, music, art, films, etc… come to mind for you when considering the comparative representations we see that inform what is happening today?


  16. In an ironic way we live a less public life than we did in years past. Today’s publicity is one of shallow snapshots. What is important public “stuff” today, will be boring and forgotten by most of us (not the local folk) by tomorrow (ok, maybe give it till Friday). However in years past, private events that occurred within ones home town, quickly spread throughout the local community and may have become life lingering labels, for better or worse. Think of “The Scarlet Letter” or any similar scenario.


  17. Wow, this is great post. I really appreciate someone addressing this issue where in today’s age there is so little privacy and almost anyone can gain exposure just for the sake of…gaining exposure. I also strongly agree with your statement about how we don’t know how this social media boom will effect us long term. I think the same thing when I eat food that was made in a factory. But awareness is the first key step into solving the issue at hand. Good start 🙂


    • Why, thank you very much. It is a discussion we need to keep having. We have nothing to lose by contemplating these issues, in my opinion. And most importantly, censorship is a very unstable solution. Social sanction, however, is viable. We do have a choice about what we consume and what we abstain from. Meanwhile, how this will effect us in the long run is determined by how we experience it today.


  18. I’d say that modern media allows more people to hear about more news events. In the 1800s, those miners in Chile would have been unknown to most Americans. On the other hand, I feel that the crush of additional news from our modern media makes us less able to distinguish the really important stuff from the light-weight stuff. And allows us to more quickly forget the important stuff, which is a real problem.


  19. Interesting perspective. So you ask, “Is it the fault of the media for producing it or the fault of the public for consuming it?” I would suggest it is both — and neither. I think instead of placing blame, we as a society need to come to terms with this reality. The pervasiveness of the media and the obvious investment of the audience are not going away.

    This post reminded me of the idea that Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound during his presidency, yet shared a “gentleman’s agreement” of sorts with the media that they would not picture him that way. Amazing how much has changed in a few decades…


  20. It seems we (TV watching people as a whole) judge and determine from our own understanding what another person’s expression speaks. But in most cases, we’ve never been in their situation. So how on earth could we know?


  21. Great post. You’re on the homepage 😀 Congrats with that.

    Personally I feel invincible when doing sport, playing music or working at some great project.

    Best regards


    • Wait….what? Really? …. Um, holy wow!

      I feel invincible when I’m playing lacrosse, working in the theatre and having intelligent discussions with awesome folks like yourself! 🙂


  22. You had me until “Teabaggers”. You just made your whole post irrelevant.


    • Did I? Or is it possible I used that word specifically to prove a point?


      What do you think new media platforms are doing to us? What are the possible dangers? What are the things that disturb you and why? What important social dynamics are we losing and what are we gaining? How is our language changing? Or is this all a bunch of nonsense compared to more important things like, Lindsay Lohan or Teabaggers?

      Allow me to clarify: The fact that “Teabaggers” is a term applied to malign and mock the Tea Party Movement demonstrates the recalcitrant use of language infecting our vernacular. The Urban Dictionary defines it as:

      People who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement which started in 2007 and has grown more and more popular since. Teabaggers come from all walks of life.
      Teabaggers don’t agree on all issues, but come together with the common interest of following the constitution as for the role of the federal government. Limited government, lower federal government spending, lower taxes, individual liberty – are common ideals.

      Many Teabaggers are constitutionalists, libertarians, classical liberals, or paleo conservatives.
      The progressives tried to ridicule the tea party movement (using Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” of 1-ISOLATE 2-RIDICULE 3-DESTROY) but it backfired on them, when the tea party redefined the term ‘Teabagger’, and began to wear the moniker proudly.

      More clearly explained in a December 7, 2009 article for the National Review (Digital) by Jay Nordlinger, the evolution of this term as we know it today is very revealing. If you think about how Plato warned of what can happen when people lack the intelligence to distinguish figurative use of language and remove it from the context, inferring a literal meaning, thus diluting the message? That’s how the whole “Teabagger” slander caught on. The first activist demonstration by The Tea Party included sending bags of tea to the White House to symbolize their initial protest. However, media personalities removed the action from the context of the moment and what was intended as a figurative gesture, quickly took on a nasty, literal context.

      I have no doubt you are sexually hip, but just in case you’re not, please know that “teabag” has a particular meaning in certain circles. In order to have a discussion of our general topic, we must be aware of that meaning, and I call on the Source of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: “‘Teabagging’ is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” I could quote you more, but you have had enough.

      He ends the article with the key point: In any event, it may well be too late to purge “teabagger” from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I’m for giving it a try: for running “teabagger” out of town, even at this late date. It is really a lowdown term. “Tea partier” is a neutral term. “Tea-party patriots” is a positive term, used by some of the protesters themselves. “Teabagger” — not so positive, and not so neutral.

      Ultimately, the poor use of Rhetorical devices, like, Litotes (understatement, for intensification, by denying the contrary of the thing being affirmed) have evidently affected more than our common vernacular. Hence, I concluded the series of questions by a reference to “Teabaggers.”

      “Lindsay Lohan” also is an example relevant to the point of how desensitized most folks are to another person’s personal struggle. Her situation should evoke compassion but instead encourages an indulgence and voyeurism. The vitriol saturating media coverage and comfortable practice of tabloid journalism has corrupted legitimate news outlets and even our political representatives. I find this very concerning, very disturbing and of great importance.

      If you still feel that the use of the word “Teabagger” in the context of this piece renders it irrelevant, then I am sorry for this. We are quick to jump to conclusions, quick to substitute reason with emotion, and quick to hit the send button without bothering to pause and think. Whether or not we understand what we are reading, seeing, and responding to, is part of why I am asking these questions.

      And why I took the time to respond to your comment, in hopes that perhaps you might look more closely. Feel free to agree/disagree. I welcome your response.


      PS. Oh, and I am actually — GASP! — a Conservative. Why else would I have Victor Davis Hanson on my Blogroll?


  23. The dangers of this is that as a society of people, most no longer have lives of their own and only live through the lives of others. How many people do nothing on a day to day basis except watch others lives on reality tv? Or check the lives of others on facebook? Or read magazines about the most little mundane details of peoples lives? Think about it, we live in a society that if you are rich, have sex on video and put it on the net, the next day you will make national news! Then receive your own tv show, and a few years later everyone will forget why you are famous and you’ll just be there with people dying to know everything about your life


    • I for one know that we need to spend alternate weeks “unplugged”. Real communication and connection does not take place inside 140 characters or less. Computers network…people “connect”. The social media platforms are a boon and a curse and it’s important to find the balance.


      • Absolutely, designating time to “unplug” is a concept people ought to consider, especially when you have a job or lifestyle where spending almost your whole day “plugged-in” adds up. If the disproportion creates for an exponential amount of time in front of a computer, blackberry, television, whatever, perhaps a person ought to consider or take note if this is changing them for the worse. Ultimately, it is up to you whether or not it is a concept that will be worth trying. I know I’ve done it and felt the better for it. Also, this past Spring, a bunch of my friends participated in a National “Unplug” Day and that was cool to see. However, for some people, as another comment points out, this is not a viable idea because the internet, social networking, mobile devices and other technology have actually improved their quality of life.

        (FYI Readers: Using “one” or just “his” or “her” remains a grammatical rubrics cube for me and I have yet to come to terms with it. So apologies to those who cannot STAND it when a writer chooses the awkward “his/her.”) It’s interesting how the dynamic applies to the individual and His/Her subjective experience or understanding of what a writer intends to communicate. Apropos of the comment where the reader begins by writing that he/she disagrees with my post, I was actually startled to realize the reader inferred from my writing that I have a negative opinion of media, advocating against the use of technology and media platforms. Also, a different reader posted misinterpreted the use of the word “Teabagger,” taking immediate offense and commenting to that affect.

        In both these instances, had I been speaking face to face with the person, perhaps this miscommunication may have been avoided. Who knows? Perhaps it is I, who was at fault, either due to poor writing or my own misinterpretation of their comments. Regardless, you are very correct to say that we need to find a balance between the good and the bad. For me, and perhaps for others, that process begins with awareness and then is nurtured by exploring the issues and discussing it. I fear for those who are becoming less and less aware, who are disconnecting from reality, and who are forgetting civil discourse and basic human courtesy. However, this doesn’t apply to everyone. And I am most thrilled to see others as interested in learning from each other as I am in learning from you all.


Please Share Your Thoughts, I'll Respond!

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: