Al Jazeera recently came to Humboldt and interviewed local law enforcement officer, Cyrus Silva.  They asked “What would it take to eradicate cannabis from Humboldt County?”  “An act of God,” Silva replied.

Knowing that the drug war has failed, people around the world are ready to explore legalization as an option for dealing with the normal human need for pleasure. They are watching California wondering how it will vote on Prop. 19.  People from distant countries know the vote here could change laws where they live.  I’ve personally been interviewed by media in Ireland and Australia.  People there know what we do here is going to affect them. Legalization in California could remove the first brick in the wall that separates reality (huge amounts of cannabis grown and consumed every year) from the fantasy world that the state can control the personal pleasures of its citizens.

When Al Jazeera’s English language show, Fault Lines, came here, they explored the issues involved and how people in California are going to vote.  Among others, they interviewed Joey Burger of the Humboldt Grower’s Association. He stepped forward to represent the large pro Prop. 19 contingent in the area. He believes that the “majority of growers are happy to compete in a free market.”

Hopefully, the local supervisors are working already to provide a framework that will allow our local growers to create a niche market that allows them financial success when competing against the mega factory grows in Oakland.

Because what it may take to eradicate most marijuana from Humboldt is not an act of God but a failure of our local government to create a friendly place for mom and pop growers to farm.

32 thoughts on “Humboldt Grower’s Association on Al Jazeera

  1. Kym, I just love this:

    Because what it may take to eradicate most marijuana from Humboldt is not an act of God but a failure of our local government to create a friendly place for mom and pop growers to farm.

    For more than 40 years local government, local business and local landowners HAVE provided a “friendly place” to grow and sell marijuana. Whatever eradication issues, property losses and deaths were simply the price or costs of doing business. The number of normal, average people living in the North Coast that cashed in on “mom and pop” grows over the years defined the de facto or actual legalization of marijuana. Now the criminal base that made this their living worry about survival. Well, that’s the price of criminal business. Those of us law-abiding taxpayers paid through the nose for everyone’s right to profit off of this scourge. We, to a large part, paid out the monies that kept these county governments and their programs going while these “mom and pop” growers and local businesses enjoyed the benefits of all that tax-free money.

    I guess what irritates me the most are your efforts to try to generate some sort of respectability for these people and their dirty business. Just because the majority of people turned a blind eye to what was happening didn’t mean what these so-called “mom and pop growers” were doing was right. And that’s the difference you and all your friends are yet to learn. Don’t get me wrong, my position on this matter from the mid-sixties on was: “Either stamp it out altogether or legalize it.” Well, “stamping it out” when nearly everyone was exploiting “it” was never a reality. So, keeping it criminal kept up the value, legalizing it was really never a reality either. Maybe now, when the true costs of this dirty business starts seeping in, people will begin to connect the dots and you’ll get your wish.

  2. I agree, joe blow. It is a “dirty” business….HAHAHAHHA, SOIL GET IT!!! Ya know, the marijuiana grown by people who risk losing everything including years of their lives which cannot be replaced, is enjoyed by legit business owners who would never take the risk in the first place, not that they could grow killa bud themselves without years of experience either. Shut up and smoke that criminal bud that got to you because somebody WASN’T arrested. You reek of jealousy more than da kine.

  3. I think both types (growers and non) contributed to make Humboldt a wonderful place to live. It is just that most people who are not growers don’t value their contributions and what they have provided. SoHum for instance would not have a vibrant arts and non-profit community if it weren’t for the growers. Also our volunteer fire depts are often staffed and supported by many growers. Our rural roads are maintained by growers.

    The costs of growing illegally are often ugly–increased violence and lack of accountability. But those are because of the laws against marijuana not because of marijuana.

  4. I’m totally for the direction of you and yours, kym…but I gotta be brutally honest about what I see. I’ve only tuned into the local blogworld this year because two major issues are on the table for Humboldt: the proposed bigger freeway for bigger trucks through Richardson Grove and massive 50+ acre dense commercial/residential sprawl zones. The marijuana situation, IMO, isn’t by itself incentive enough for the area to plant the foundations for urbania…sprawl requires infrastructure. It’s starting to look exactly like what they did to my old home town, which, if you consider relative size/population was reasonably less dense than our tri-city area in 2002. In a matter of no time, however the buildings went up, a big box moved in (walmart) and now the place is literally three times as tall, full of traffic and petty crime…anonymous sense of neighborhood, etc….in another ten years, you won’t be able to tell where the one town starts and the next stops.

    …change isn’t in the air, it’s in the project plans of our state money crunchers. We’ve got to protect Humboldt County’s physical environment for it’s health as well as ours. At this point in human history, there shouldn’t be any long term planning at all that stops short of at least 200 years. Clearcutting 1000 acres didn’t matter to anybody 200 years ago, etc. blabla…good morning…gotta go.

    • I had two browsers open…this comment was supposedt o go to the trimmers thread…doh! rush rush rush…

      but while I’m at it…joe blow, you’re wrong in every sense of the word. What you forget is that Humboldt earned its reputation the good ol’ fashion way. You can’t sink that ship as long as somebody’s aboard. You’ll never take the wine out of napa, etc…

  5. Kym, you need to get out of the hills once in awhile. And when you do, maybe you should take a real hard look a what’s REALLY going on in your “wonderful” Humboldt. I guess the joke’s on you though, if you can believe what you fear, legalization is going to do what the law couldn’t. Then what? If you think the law abiding folks are going to pick up the tab again, you’d better think again. All those “law abiding folks” that were growing pot on the side won’t have the money this time. Funny how life is a circle.

    How come you’re not following me on Twitter? Just askin…

    • Joe,

      I know you believe that there are unjust laws. Now the crux is do you believe that breaking unjust laws helps or harms. I believe that it is one step in changing society.

      The next question is should marijuana prohibition be considered an unjust law. I think so. At worst, marijuana harms less than alcohol. Alcohol is legal. Therefore it is unjust that marijuana is not legal.

      But, in reality, what matters most is that prohibition (of alcohol or marijuana) is unenforceable. When the government tries to legislate morality, it loses and causes members of society to disrespect other more fundamental laws–against violence for instance.

      [Why am I not following you on Twitter? Almost every time I read your blog, which I do faithfully, I end up emotionally exhausted. You often express anger at people that I don’t think deserve it. And when you have good points (you can make me see things from a totally different perspective), you often embed them in what I see as insulting language. I don’t want to face that emotional hit more frequently.]

  6. True connoisseurs don’t want to pay top dollar for hydroponic everyday weed from a big company any more than wine connoisseurs want Peter Vella or tea connoisseurs Lipton. There will still be plenty of money to be made off of well-grown shit. The folks who dedicated themselves to breeding secret wizard strains will still be able to make money. It’s only the small time wannabe welfare mama bey-bey kid type growers that will be pushed out the business.

    Joe Blow, if nobody was around to push the envelope as far as unjust laws, there would be no movement to change them. Yea folks make profit off weed, big deal. It’s not like the money is coming unwillingly.

  7. Normally I avoid directly replying to this individual, BUT . . .
    He makes my point when he defines the contradiction and resultant consequences. In a way, he really says it all.

    Joe Blow, if nobody was around to push the envelope as far as unjust laws, there would be no movement to change them. Yea folks make profit off weed, big deal. It’s not like the money is coming unwillingly.

    What makes these laws “unjust”? Who says they’re “unjust”? The people making a “profit off weed”? YEAH! NO “BIG DEAL”!

    Well, it is a big deal because it is and was criminal and totally corrupt and corrupting from beginning to end. Then when a majority “profit” the corruption becomes the acceptable; the norm. “Push the envelope” says it all. You want to change laws, you don’t rob banks, murder your neighbor or grow and sell pot. Neither do you aid and abet, harbor and protect or knowingly do business from bloodied weed. There’s a big difference between civil disobedience and outright criminal conduct. The fact that this is neither understood or accepted defines the extent of the corruption.

    • True, taking the profit motive out of cannabis will have a positive effect on society. I agree that illegal profits are a corrupting force as it lacks transparency. But still, there was no way the forces for legalization could have gotten to this point had nobody been selling weed. If the extent of civil disobedience was just growing for personal supply, this wouldn’t be an issue. It would never have become illegal if not for the profit and projected future profits being made by fiber hemp farmers.

      I should disclaim that I am not against profit by whatever means as I see it as human nature. Society can’t simply say you can grow weed except if you make any money and expect people to follow that. Look at Amsterdam for example. The corrupting force in Amsterdam is the weed suppliers, not the users. This is because it is still illegal to grow and sell bulk cannabis which makes it a hidden business lacking the transparency that makes normal business non-corrupting.

      Still, big deal when speaking of small time growers. It had to be done.

  8. What sucks is the psychological turnaround all the fulltime internet trolls and media blitzkriegs have created, making it seem like it’s the people growing the marijuana who have been and continue to maintain the plant’s illegality. I see with my own two eyes that growers are NOT afraid of legalization. I see with my own to eyes that growers are neither violent nor criminal. Joe Blow doesn’t know one single person who grows weed…and if he does, he’s doing that person a grave disservice.

  9. Un-named, You hit the nail on the head. I don’t understand how it is that with the majority of growers speaking out pro legalization how it is that the media and others insist that most growers are anti legalization.

  10. Well, Kym, you saw that article recently that went national, with the headline “cannabis patient groups oppose Prop 19″ or similar–the one that quoted one Amir Daliri as representing the “California Cannabis Association,” and which included no contextualization of this organization or its representative. To me, it says that the media are looking for headlines with a twist, something that makes a cool story.

  11. Kym, I always said you were honest. That’s why I asked you about Twitter. For your information I only asked you to see if you were involved in the voluntary boycott. Whether anyone follows me or reads my blog is irrelevant. It’s nice that you do. What people do or more importantly, what people do NOT do, that speaks to their truth. With you, I didn’t want to assume something either. I write about what concerns and interests me. When it comes to the issue of what I say and the emotional impact I unintentionally (mostly) wreak, you sound like my wife. You’ll find that after more than 40 years of marriage, she’ll tell you that strong words do NOT make a person angry. Neither do they make you weak and sickly. Truth is what it is and it hurts sometimes. I can’t help that. To “express anger” at undeserving people as you accuse me of doing, I’d have to take what they said and did “personally.” I try to NEVER take anything personally. You might try that with me. If I don’t “take” anything personal then I equally do not “make” anything personal. When people make issues “personal” then that is the truth and the “truth” is what we deal with. Not what we think it should be or how we want it to be.

    The problem with what you say is NOT one time have you ever said anything to me or shown me the courtesy of what it is I “embed” that is “insulting language” that offends you so that I can rectify (or at least try) the problem. WELL? That’s what everyone else does too. Then they call me a coward for not writing behind my real name. See why? I’ve got a whole blog full of personal insults of the most filthy, debased sewer-scum imaginable, but not one word to justify any of it. You told me one time that one of the reasons for your blog is to try to overcome misunderstandings. There is an honest way to do that. Few are willing to take that step. That said, please accept my apologies for saying things that offended you.

  12. Kym, First, I was not talking about the merits of “just” or “unjust” laws. I was talking about the consequences, unintended or not, of blatant criminal behavior in defiance of well established law. What I would or would not do regarding “unjust” laws that assaulted my conscience is an established fact. In other words, I speak and write from experience.

    There are two ways we can manage society. One way is to make all citizens responsible and accountable for the kind of society they want and pass laws accordingly then design the government, its institutions and in particular, its police force to serve those needs. The first step in this process is for the people to find, select and establish substantive, proven representatives of their choosing BEFORE any elections take place.

    The other way is to treat all citizens as worthless, sub-humans, impose a preselected bevy of mostly compromised people that serve and whore after the elitists and the money mongers, tyrannically pass draconian Dark Age laws, arm the police with the most sophisticated weaponry imaginable, train them to be the most powerful para-military force possible to enforce the “governments” judicial mandates.

    I suppose we can guess what kind of system we actually got, but what kind of system everyone “THINKS” or “BELIEVES” we got. Because of this contradiction or inner conflict there is no way to criminally violate laws, for good or bad intent, without producing social chaos and corruption. The consequences and results you define are correct and that is the corrupting reality of which I speak. Simply changing the law, however, will not cure that reality – the damage is already done.

    The law, criminalizing drug use and users, was designed to reinforce and justify making the general populace worthless, sub-humans – make their votes essentially useless. Consequently, legitimizing these elitist’s existence and their tyranny. Such people possess no concept of justice. From this, I hope you can see what side of this issue I come down on.

  13. As I read down through this reply that ended saying,

    “Still, big deal when speaking of small time growers. It had to be done.”

    I saw one word defined: AMORAL.

    The Dictionary defines “amoral” as:
    1) Not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
    2) Having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

    This is the essence of corruption and corrupt thinking. It is what comes from a lifetime of trying to justify wrong living. It is what you teach your children by what you are and what you do. Whatever sacrifices “you people” think you had to make, at least that’s how you try to spin it now, to get that product legal, are the very things that judge you. What you are makes that a fact. Legalizing marijuana can’t and won’t change that.

  14. Joe, while I hate to admit I agree with much of what you wrote about netiquette, etc…your argument here is flawed at its foundation. Marijuana was legal infinitely longer than it’s been illegal. Marijuana is a plant that grows naturally all by its lonesome, all over the world and can be consumed for effect without any processing whatsoever…etc. etc. etc. Your arguments of morality are based on reversing natural psychology…turning people recently oppressed by a fabricated morality into undeserving criminals. Would you ever admit how much you’re influenced by marijuana in the art you see, the music you listen to, the perks of “hippy protest” rights you take for granted etc? You might not smoke weed but you work with good people who do every single day…your whole family’s life is better because of it.

  15. Kym,

    I waited to see if you had the decency to respond to my two, rather lengthy comments on your post: “Humboldt Grower’s Association on Al Jazeera.” It was my friendly offer to overlook a certain truth of yours. In the meantime, I showed our conversation thread to my wife, this part here:

    [Why am I not following you on Twitter? Almost every time I read your blog, which I do faithfully, I end up emotionally exhausted. You often express anger at people that I don’t think deserve it. And when you have good points (you can make me see things from a totally different perspective), you often embed them in what I see as insulting language. I don’t want to face that emotional hit more frequently.]

    I asked her what she thought about what you said as to why, what your reason is, that you don’t follow me on Twitter when you currently follow 68 people. Her first comment was, “What I can’t figure out is why you even bother. She’s just accused you of being an Emotional Parasite. For you, that’s about as insulting as it can get.”

    Want to know why she said that? I’ll tell you anyway. For 55 years I have battled every kind of emotional, psychological, spiritual and energetic bloodsucking parasite you can imagine. That’s why.

    Somewhere along the way I met this very tender, sensitive, empathetic and very caring woman and she joined me as a fellow soldier in this struggle. After more than 40 years she’s still tender, sensitive, empathetic, and very caring. More than that, she’s a better than even match for any parasite. Her final comment was that she thinks you live in a fantasy world and just closed your door on a chance at reality. That works for me.

    When your rosy-colored bubble bursts and you’re forced to deal with the real world that is closing in on everyone right now, you can think of me and what I offered you. Whoever taught you the finer elements necessary to become a “black belt” left you sorely deficient in the most elementary quality necessary. As a mother and a wife you need to get your priorities straight – even though I doubt there is enough time left. Your teacher should have impressed upon you that strong people look upon the weak with abject disgust.

    • Joe,
      You might have noticed that I haven’t responded to anyone else either. My life doesn’t revolve around my blog. When I have time to give thoughtful responses, I will.

      • Kym,

        Really? Did I say your life did? Snide insinuations are the best you can do for a NON-“thoughtful response”? What’s it take, two seconds to tell someone, “I’ll get back to you on this”?

        What I did notice, in my cursory observation, is that you had plenty of time to put up at least 6 (six) postings in the interim. That told me you were aware that I had responded to you and that you had whatever time you needed. Guess I’m going to have to accept the fact that you really aren’t a very honest person after all. I’ve been fooled before, but then that’s how the truth reveals itself.

        • Joe,

          I’ve been dreading this in the few moments of spare time I’ve had to think about responding to the comments these last weeks. The cowardly way would be to not respond. But, because I do respect you as a human being and now I do have time, I feel I have to reply even though I’m hoping that you have forgotten about this thread. Coward that I am, I’m hoping these words don’t get read.

          First of all, I’m glad you have supportive wife. She sounds very loving. In no way was I trying to insult you. I have found that you are very direct. So I thought that I would try being as direct as you are. I hoped that I was speaking the same language as you were and you would respect that.

          Usually when you are so direct, I feel attacked or I feel you are attacking others. When you make personal attacks against me or others [here’s an example of what I see as an attack ” Whoever taught you the finer elements necessary to become a “black belt” left you sorely deficient in the most elementary quality necessary. As a mother and a wife you need to get your priorities straight – even though I doubt there is enough time left. Your teacher should have impressed upon you that strong people look upon the weak with abject disgust”] I can’t hear the other words you have to say. I can only hear what I perceive as insults.

          This isn’t the way I was taught to speak to people so its like you are speaking a foreign language. It exhausts me to try and filter out that stuff and only take in the part where you are discussing an issue. Joe, I try very hard to be honest with you and that forces me to do a lot of soul searching. That can be good but it is also hard. I wish I had the time and energy to listen to all you have to say but I don’t. So I’ve decided to limit myself to your blog and, of course, your comments here and elsewhere.

          I don’t expect you to like my decision ( I wouldn’t if I were you) but I can hope that by being as honest as I know how to be you’ll respect the effort that I’m making at least.

          And, yes I’ve had time to put up lots of posts, teach, and even visit a couple of times with friends. But these last weeks have been some of the busiest and hardest in my life. Everyone chooses where to spend their time, in my case I have chosen differently than you would have. For me, the choices I made were necessary for me. It does bother me that that doesn’t meet your needs. But, I’m slowly and carefully learning to make choices that value my needs. I may not always make the best choices but I’m trying.

          • Kym, why bless your little heart. Look what popped up on my reader, YOU.

            First, I’m dammed because you can’t understand me, I don’t talk right. Then I’m dammed because I’m too direct and attacking poor little you. Pardon my sarcasm, but some of this personal diatribe gets tedious.

            Did I not ask you one time if you had read the Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz? Well, he has another book called The Fifth Agreement. That Agreement is: BE SKEPTICAL, BUT LEARN TO LISTEN – “Don’t believe yourself or anybody else. Use the power of doubt to question everything you hear: Is it really the truth? Listen to the intent behind words, and you will understand the real message.”

            Both books would help you a lot. Get one of them and read it over a few times and try putting the Agreements to work for yourself. Then you will understand that I DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK anyone. That would mean I take what you say to me personally and I do not. Change the rules and make the discussion about you and me – well, that’s another matter, but even then it is NOT personal. Question: How do you teach children essential discipline without punishing them?

            The truth is what it reveals itself to be. When you say you respect me and then turn around and accuse me of personally “attacking and insulting you” … COME ON! Not one time during the online conversations we’ve had in the past two years have you done the one thing that made the difference between personally judging me for discussing the issues. The problem is yours when you are unable to distinguish between WHO you are from WHAT you think or believe. Get that figured out and you and I can have a civilized and productive conversation.

            Something for you to think about. A little over two thousand years ago a man began to walk among his people saying and do things that they didn’t understand, even alienating and personally offending some of them. In due course, thousands of people came to listen to him. Some of the things he said and did made some of these people mad enough at him that they tried to kill him. Sound familiar? His name was Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ. Out of all those thousands of people only 12 men became his friends. Do you know why? Because they were the ONLY ones that had the guts, or if you prefer, righteous inclination to come back to him and ASK him WHAT he meant. They personally recognized, accepted and engaged him and as a consequence received the gift he offered everyone. Even then those men did not come to understand the value of that gift until AFTER his death. Moreover some of them struggled their whole lives to reconcile that reality within themselves.

            That essential gift was lost to humanity throughout the eons. Yet, man’s futile struggle to survive on this Earth today depends wholly upon retaining that gift. I appreciate your consideration. I’ll see if I can continue to peak your interest on the blog Report.

            • From one Joe Blow to another—–most debates only entrench ones feeling. While I accept that most people knee-jerk when confronted by an opposing view, I personally am tired of peoples hurt feelings. It is twisted to do unto others what we perceive them doing to us. Hurt feelings are dream-ghosts with limited shelf-life.

  16. From one Joe Blow to another, HUH? Who says Kym and I are having a “debate”? Second, I don’t know you, OBVIOUSLY, nor was I talking to you, so what makes you think I give one whit what you think or how you feel? Third, who says I have hurt feelings? You certainly couldn’t get that impression from what I wrote, since my WHOLE reason for the comment was to emphasize the fact that I DO NOT take anything personally, thus engendering “hurt feelings,” even your comment. The only person struggling with their feelings is Kym.

    “[W]hat we perceive them doing to us.” PERCEIVE? I agree, not that should mean anything, most people live ONLY within their dreams, judging others by those same dreams while constantly trying to force everyone to accept their dreams (them) and submit to their worthless opinions as reality. If there’s any debate with Kym, it is about that fact. Do I mercilessly personally attack her like some debased Internet Troll, totally “off his rocker” needing help for trying to elicit some emotional response like I’ve been accused? Or am I offering her another way of looking at her dreams? She says “I’m direct” in what I say, but that’s offensive to her, but at the same time she says “I’m talking in a foreign language” or in riddles. Well, they accused Jesus Christ and other similar types of people of doing the same things, eventually people came to learn the truth. TRUTH is not someone’s dreams and when that becomes obvious, the truth always manifest itself. Well, some say that, the “truth” hurts. And that is NO perception.

    When someone punches me in the nose with a false lying accusation, well intended or not, and the blood flies and my eyes tear up and I can’t see, breath, focus and smell only blood – THAT’S NO DAMMED PERCEPTION!

  17. Kym, normally I don’t answer or engage (recognize) other people that make comments on other people’s personal conversations. Usually all that does is shine a light on some moronic opinion, trying to confuse the discussion. However, in this case it seemed appropriate to our longstanding conversation. Your blog is open to all, as far as I know, and commenter’s issues are between you and them until that directly reflects adversely upon me. When you let some commenter’s innuendo, outright lies or false accusations stand uncontested, personally attacking me, then that says something about you, your intent and your judgments.

    By the way, I did forget about you. Did you not notice that there were NO further comments from me after this thread? That was my intent in that last posting. Unfortunately, I’d set the email and “IT” inappropriately notified me. So, you can blame yourself for trying to sneak your comment in as you re-try to justify your attitude and actions expressed in the whole comment thread. At least you had plenty of time to think about what you were going to say. Personally, I’ve got no ox to gore in any of this, with you or anyone else. When people go on record with their blog articles and personal statements and can’t back them up, or justify what they say or contend, that’s not my problem. Anymore than it is my problem if they can’t separate the subject from the object, connect the dot’s, follow the logic or understand the simple meanings of words they can easily and quickly define with an online dictionary. What is a problem is when such people confuse themselves with what they think, write, and say when they falsely accuse me of personally “attacking them” when, at their invitation, I’m making observations about what they “wrote” or “said.” Not who they are. That might change once they change the rules and take matters to the “personal” level with accusations. Nowhere in any of our conversations have I or did I ever ask you to agree with me. To say that I did and do, speaks to an arrogant, self-righteous Elitist’s attitude that is at the root cause of our inability to communicate peacefully. To respect someone as a human being is to grant them the same rights as yourself and in this case to speak as an equal, free from personal recriminations, accusations and other insulting and demeaning judgments. In every situation, a person’s inability to do this says everything about them and absolutely nothing about me. One way the “truth” reveals itself. In the end, the real test of our character as human beings is to respect that “truth” and act accordingly.

  18. Wow,
    Joe Blow,whats your problem?
    You seem very angry at life. [portion removed] Chill. I feel bad for you.
    As a Humboldt Grower I would like to point out that what the Humboldt Growers Association stands for is an obvious attempt at political corruption at it’s worst.
    We are rebels and have always been this way. More than 95% of people I’ve talked to are very opposed to being regulated by the interest of a few growers who are working with the County Planning commission. This ordinance will put most mom and pop growers out of business. One question,how would sales be regulated by the County,that has yet to be discussed or made public.
    I’m sorry to admit it but Humboldt is one of the saddest most greedy places I’ve ever been to and sometimes I’m ashamed to call it home.
    And,those plant in the video look great.

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