ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, August 09, 2018

Science skepticism is well-justified

It makes sense that so much science appears to follow politics rather than, as people like to pretend, the other way around:
Research confirms that every decade since 1974, conservatives’ trust in scientists has decreased. But little has been done to explore why. Some suggest that conservatives are less likely to accept data that “threatens their worldview,” note Confas and his team.

But Confas told Campus Reform that this is a misguided approach. If anything, he said, published research indicates that liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view. Confas and his research team propose a different explanation. They suggest that increasing levels of skepticism towards scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberalization—of these institutions.

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas. He points to the field of sociology as an example. A recent study surveying 479 sociology professors discovered that only 4 percent identify as conservative or libertarian, while 86 percent identify as liberal or left-radical.

The unstated goal of sociology, Confas suggests, “involves reorganizing society to fight inequality, oppression, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological orientation arose out of…civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and other progressive movements.”

Most sociologists would claim, in good faith, to be objective. But emerging research suggests that the political slant in the field is corrupting objectivity, due to a variety of issues including confirmation bias and scholar-activism in the field.

“Taking the easy route isn’t something that I or my coauthors are tempted to do. We want to do our part to help correct the science,” Confas told Campus Reform. “Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.
So politics drives science, especially when the scientists are dependent upon government funding to pay their bills. The observable fact is that science is absolutely and utterly untrustworthy; as a "truth mechanism", it's not as reliable as flipping a coin. As I have pointed out on several occasions, we have a word for science that is reliable, and that word is "engineering".

And let's face it, this would hardly be the first time that the "I love science" Left had the causality reversed.

Labels: ,

49 Comments:

Blogger Franz Lyonheart August 09, 2018 6:48 AM  

These are researchers working in the social sciences and environmental science.

Aka the non-sciences.

Amongst my pack of mathematicians and natural scientists (aka actual sciences, such as physics, chemistry), the credibility of "social studies" was utterly destroyed by this book. It does require some academic (i.e., beyond college) mathematics to properly enjoy. But if you do, it's fantastically hilarious (and a so sad indictment on the situation of academia even in the 1990ies already).

Blogger Cassandros the Elder August 09, 2018 6:49 AM  

When engineers lie, planes fall out of the sky.

Blogger Ferdinand August 09, 2018 6:57 AM  

Sociology, international developement and psychology are pretty much party academies for the socialist international. In Austria the green and social democrat parties openly use those fields and the student government to groom their new members. That same student government also uses tax money to bus in german antifa several times a year to help them protest the FPÖ and ÖVP.

Blogger JACIII August 09, 2018 6:58 AM  

Subtitle - Affirmative Action Professors Can't Do Math and We had to Hire Them, so... Wymen's Studies!

For a mind boggling peek into the world of the marginally literate publishing "scholarly" works follow @realpeerreview on twitter. It won't take long to see a pattern.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 09, 2018 7:05 AM  

I recently re-watched the Andromeda Strain. It still holds up fairly well but there were a few things that this 1971 movie does that shocks my 2018 sensibilities.

One. Full frontal nudity in a G rated film.

Two. The fine for spilling TS controlled information was a laughable $2000.

Three. A Republican administration built an umpteen billion dollar facility, (and clearly made it a top federal priority) because all of the professors of a science department at BERKELEY signed a letter of opinion that it should do so.

Think about that.

Crichton was not a bad author. If he put that in a book it was because at the time it was believable to the general public.

Blogger Silent Draco August 09, 2018 7:06 AM  

Interesting; I'd read the fake paper, but not the book. Both of those fields (ab)use large amounts of statistics to defend the undefendable. Neither uses probability to understand the questions being asked, or the data sets produced.

I heard a similar story the other day from a biomedical researcher. As government largesse dries up, the remaining projects come under more scrutiny. Suddenly the experimental design and analysis flaws emerge. Many students and lower-tier (mental) investigators now look like candidates for animal husbandry, not PhDs.

Blade-X and Roundup, followed by a good disking, appear to be the only way to save those fields for productive use. Wipe it clean.

Blogger Uncle John's Band August 09, 2018 7:10 AM  

This is a timely post. It is interesting that the "Science" mentioned here corresponds more closely to what academic postmodernists would call discourse - authoritative fake theory in a closed domain - than any empirical methodology. Politicization is simply a neutral term for the gradual establishment of leftist mythology as the real first principles.

Distinguishing "impact scientists" correctly separates the legitimate researchers from what is a charitable term for shills. Hiding behind the reputation of an entity while pursuing a contrary agenda is a common leftist trick. The right's skepticism with "science" isn't with structured empiricism, it's with liars.

I've always found lying globalist shills hiding behind the 'science contradicts their world view' lie particularly repugnant. Christianity and empiricism are perfectly compatible, which is why Christians came up with it as a method. It's pure projection; just look at how leftists react to actual robust empirical findings like IQ or human biodiversity.

Blogger Killua August 09, 2018 7:11 AM  

The anti-conservative bias in science and academia is beyond confirmed. There are countless examples of scientist being fired, shunned or de-platformed for holding views contrary to the leftist dogma.

Whenever a leftist says "well, my position is supported by 93% of scientists", I just respond with "of course they support it, they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they don't".

Blogger HMS Defiant August 09, 2018 7:19 AM  

The numbers speak for themselves. With less than 2% identifying as conservative the whole concept of peer review is dead. Reading the emails that came out of the Mann research where he and his 'peers' actively destroyed peer review wasn't so much illuminating as beating a dead horse.

Blogger Skyler the Weird August 09, 2018 7:30 AM  

@2 When Engineers become Diverse
You're going to need a hearse.

Blogger Pierre Truc August 09, 2018 7:33 AM  

I have the same amount of trust in social science done by leftists as in a study funded by Monsanto and Philip Morris which finds that dipping my cigarettes in Roundup cures cancer.

In fact, I'd have more respect for the latter, as at least these guys know they're lying... whereas liberal brain damage simply makes the truth unthinkable.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len August 09, 2018 7:41 AM  

Sociology exists solely to create "studies" to be waved in the faces of people questioning whatever lunatic "policy" is currently being flogged. It's absurd that members of this pseudo-field still try to present themselves as anything but policy flacks. Twitter polls have greater integrity and application.

"my position is supported by 93% of scientists"

And science is not a democratic process. Either you have the data or you don't. Of course, no one here is surprised to discover fallacious logic is the only logic leftists deal in.

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2018 7:41 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2018 7:45 AM  

If it ISNT control variable reproducible and falsifiable then it isn't science.

Much of cosmology, geology, biology isn't.

When you read "scientists say" in a Newspaper just insert "High Priests of Scientism say" equals "Faith based purveyors of pop culture theorists say".

Equals "We the experts by mutual backslapping consent hereby decree our Official Bull"

Blogger Stephen J Carter August 09, 2018 7:49 AM  

Eventually the environmental effect on other science disciplines will kick in and politicization will infect and corrupt many more fields. Perhaps there'll be a revival of real science, real empirical process, and science would become trustworthy again. But how likely is that?

Blogger lannes August 09, 2018 8:08 AM  

Did you know the title of your blog should be "vox populi", not "vox popoli" ?

Blogger Jack Collinson August 09, 2018 8:31 AM  

If it's true that the social & environmental sciences are practiced with systemic bias for political reasons, it is a fortiori true of biology whenever it touches upon the theory of evolution. This is because the theory of evolution is not merely a hypothesis of interest only to biologists, but is rather the cosmological principle or founding myth of modern society. Modern society is built on an evolutionary cosmology as much as medieval society was built on a biblical one, and this is reflected in all aspects of our society (including politics, law, art, education, etc.) To do away with evolution would be to do away with modernity / modern society as such, which is why modern "scientists" cling to it so fiercely despite increasing evidence of its absurdity. To undermine the evolutionary cosmology would be to undermine the intellectual totalitarianism of the "scientific" establishment, seeing as their pride of place as educators of mankind rests on the assumption that the world is entirely material and can only be understood through material science.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 09, 2018 8:38 AM  

"As I have pointed out on several occasions, we have a word for science that is reliable, and that word is "engineering".

As I often explain to those who hold "scientists" in high regard, and especially those who deprecate engineers:

When a scientist is wrong, the consequences range anywhere from the embarrassment of having to retract a paper, all the way down to .... nothing.

When an engineer is wrong, the consequences range from people dying all the way down to lawsuits and payouts starting in the millions of dollars to make good on damages

Who do you think is more likely to work harder to make sure he's absolutely right, but testing, and retesting, until his position is unassailable?

And if the person still doesn't get it:

"Which discipline is more difficult to get graduate from at the same university -- science or engineering?"

Blogger VD August 09, 2018 8:42 AM  

Did you know the title of your blog should be "vox populi", not "vox popoli"?

Just leave now, midwit. You're too short for this ride. Now, go ahead and fuck off. Don't come back.

Blogger Artisanal Toad August 09, 2018 8:47 AM  

It's all about money and public policy.

The grant process is the key to controlling the research, whether in the voodoo sciences or the hard sciences, by controlling which proposals get funded. There are areas of hard science in which it is not possible to get funding due to the political impact of the research, unless the grant proposal is specific that the desire of the study is to disprove something that interferes with the liberal agenda. This mechanism ensures that studies are done that support the liberal agenda and denies funding to studies that would support a conservative agenda.

What we're left with is accidental discoveries for the conservative side of the aisle. Consider the subject of telegony, which got plenty of money if you wanted to disprove the theory. There was a study done in the Netherlands in 2012 that accidentally discovered microchimerism of male DNA in half of the umbilical cord blood samples tested.

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/120/3/505.long?sso-checked=true

Specifically, the microchimerism is male DNA that didn't come from the father of the baby and it got there as a transfer from the mother to the baby during the course of the pregnancy.

It is already well established that when a woman is pregnant, fetal cells invade her body and act as stem cells to repair damage to the mother's body. The result of that is the permanent deposit of the father's DNA within the mothers body. It's also well established that when a woman has unprotected sex, her body absorbs the semen. When Lazar Greenfield pointed that out... along with the fact that women who have unprotected sex are happier and less depressed, feminists destroyed his career.

So, on the basis of that study, try getting funding for a study that will follow up on this microchimerism and determine where it came from (father of previous baby, or is sex alone sufficient to transfer DNA from man to woman). What impact does this microchimerism have on the child, genetically, in terms of heritable disease? Is it just microchimerism, or is it also chimerism?

The problem is such research threatens feminism. What if there was proof that a woman pollutes her body with the DNA of every man she's ever had unprotected sex with? If nothing else, it provides a scientific validity for a man's desire for a virgin bride...

I assert that if the NIH had some conservatives deciding what got funded we'd see lots of "impact scientists" lose their positions. We'd also see a return to real research.

Blogger Shimshon August 09, 2018 8:49 AM  

Vox, what does lannes know? His doesn't even know the title of his blog should be "shy and discrete," not "shy and discreet."

I crack myself up sometimes.

Blogger Mocheirge August 09, 2018 8:51 AM  

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary consensus.

That's how science works, right?

Blogger Sam August 09, 2018 9:24 AM  

The 1970s were when the purge of conservatives from academia was in full swing and obvious. Science had been corrupted before that- I believe the first mention of the replication crisis was from the 1950s and the blank slaters started popping up in the late 19th century.

Blogger Cliff Mccrary August 09, 2018 9:27 AM  

I’ve noticed most millennials are so indoctrinated that they don’t even know what science is. They think it’s a set of facts about the world and don’t realize it’s a scientific method to test hypothesis, which more often than not can’t even be reproduced.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey August 09, 2018 9:29 AM  

What, the con-men are calling themselves 'impact scientists' now? That's a hoot!

Blogger James Dixon August 09, 2018 9:54 AM  

> When engineers lie, planes fall out of the sky.

Or, more recently, bridges fall down.

> Perhaps there'll be a revival of real science, real empirical process, and science would become trustworthy again. But how likely is that?

Very, but it will take time. Science is too useful a field to be left lying fallow.

Blogger Stan Dane August 09, 2018 9:59 AM  

One of the great engineers of all time was Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. He built the Nuclear Navy largely through the force of his will. In just seven years, he went from not knowing anything about atomic energy to solving all of the engineering hurdles to have build the first nuclear powered submarine: the Nautilus.

I am current reading a three-volume history of the Naval Nuclear Power program. The second volume, Rickover and the Nuclear Navy: The Discipline of Technology, says this (pp 192):

"The Oak Ridge experience left Rickover a legacy of keen distrust of scientists, an attitude that marked all his future undertakings. He was not opposed to science or to scientists, but scientific truth was not engineering truth, nor was the mission of the scientist the same as the task of the engineer. The scientist in his quest had to exercise strict discipline to exclude human bias, preconception, and prejudice; the engineer in his job had to take these frailties into account, for his machines and devices would be operated by and in the midst of humans with all of their shortcomings. Both approaches were essential, but for practical application of nuclear technology the principles of engineering had to govern."

Blogger The Observer August 09, 2018 10:11 AM  

Perhaps there'll be a revival of real science, real empirical process, and science would become trustworthy again. But how likely is that?

It'll happen again when the motivation for scientists is once again discovering and understanding the nature of God through His creation, instead of grants, social status, social justice, and so forth.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia August 09, 2018 10:30 AM  

VD wrote.

The observable fact is that science is absolutely and utterly untrustworthy; as a "truth mechanism", it's not as reliable as flipping a coin.

Sweeping generalization much?

Yes, of course, no doubt, obviously, in fact....whatever emphasizer one chooses, there's a lot of "science" that is crap. I know. I've worked with scientists.

But here's one that, when practiced diligently won't be. Population genetics. Admittedly it is being constrained and shackled by political correctness and "right thinking," but it is revealing obvious and undeniable and uncomfortable truths.

If you're a pessimist, you might believe these truths will never see the light of day. Maybe. But then again, as I am an optimist, like you, about the alt right being inevitable, I am an optimist about that as well.

Why? Because I can see the excitement generated by these discoveries overcoming the “horror” of the leftist equalists at their subversive implications.

Blogger justaguy August 09, 2018 11:17 AM  

#27: I agree with you that engineering is necessary to put science into action and that Rickover had a distrust of the influence of scientists.As a graduate of Rickover's navy and CO of a submarine, I can tell you that Rickover's influence is still there and it is engineer oriented.

However, Rickover had to build on the science established in the 1920s and 1930s that allowed building the first reactor. The scientists worked out the theory and then worked out the initial values of the coefficients (such as how many neutrons per fission etc.) that allowed engineers to take over and then start designing and building better and better reactors.

For the next gen reactors with thorium--the same is happening- first the theory, testing and data and then design, improve, build again. It takes quite a bit of time and effort from initial science, through the science breadboard and experiments, to getting a production ready engineering design. Both portions, the science and the engineering are needed. It is just too bad we have destroyed our ability to do the science part. Everyone wants funding and tenure so the science goes to away to please the political funding masters.

Blogger kurt9 August 09, 2018 11:18 AM  

This is the result of 70 years of government-funded science and its emphasis on publication over all else.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 09, 2018 11:28 AM  

@20

"I assert that if the NIH had some conservatives deciding what got funded we'd see lots of "impact scientists" lose their positions."

LOSE THEIR POSITIONS???????

For betraying HUMANITY with lies?

Firing takes too long.

Cranial lead-overdose takes 1/1000th of a second.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 09, 2018 11:40 AM  

@24

"They think it’s a set of facts about the world and don’t realize it’s a scientific method to test hypothesis, which more often than not can’t even be reproduced."

Remember, everybody, when someone talks about "The THEORY of Evolution" or "the Big Bang Theory", ask them the following 3-part question
A) How you could conduct tests of such "theories", with both a "control sample" and a "test sample,"
B) exactly WHAT aspect of the theory is being tested in their proposed experiment, AND
C) what criteria is to be used to distinguish between "the data supports the theory in this aspect" vs "the data does NOT support the theory."


When they fail (as they will) to give an answer which is an ACTUAL TEST which can be conducted (nevermind that it hasn't) then you can inform them:

"Then it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. And an untestable one at that -- quit glorifying nebulous musings by referring to them as well-tested theories"

Hit the "I F-ing Love Science" crowd right in the gut.

By the way, that means YOU have to stop referring to the various untested (and oftentimes, untestable) hypotheses as theories, too.

The fast-and-loose notion that any idea is "a theory" comes from... not surprisingly... the legal profession .. where any half-cocked idea can be called "a legal theory" or "the prosecution's/plaintiff's/defense's theory."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 09, 2018 12:02 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Hit the "I F-ing Love Science" crowd right in the gut.


That's astonishing. You think they will even be able to parse the statement.
Challenging the self-image of the low-IQ emotionally driven, like the IFLS crowd, is virtually guaranteed to end in complete incomprehension.

Blogger RobertT August 09, 2018 12:12 PM  

Unless you had your head in an oven for the last 20 years, everyone knew this all along ... Remember East Anglia! Nice to see it in print.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 09, 2018 12:21 PM  

There was a study done in the Netherlands in 2012 that accidentally discovered microchimerism of male DNA in half of the umbilical cord blood samples tested.

Not really accidental -- they were looking for it as a possible explanation for known birth order effects on the success of stem cell transplantation. A couple of issues -- they were able to reliably detect microchimerism directly in the females with older brothers, but only one girl without an older brother was questionably positive -- at the limit of detection for their assay. The other positives were not direct testing for DNA, but for immunological response to male antigens (HY-specific T cells). This could indicate microchimerism -- but it's not direct proof.

Potential sources for male microchimerism in a female infant (other than an older sibling) include maternal blood transfusion (excluded in this study), maternal older brothers (i.e. maternal microchimerism) twin sibling of the mom that didn't make it/ was reabsorbed (relatively uncommon), and prior miscarriage (often early/ unrecognized). Early, unrecognized miscarriage is different mechanistically from sperm exposure alone, but the social implications are pretty similar, of course.

The problem with postulating semen as a direct source of microchimerism is that sperm is haploid, and there's no known (or currently plausible) mechanism for DNA from spermatozoa to survive/ reproduce in the absence of an oocyte. Leukocytes in semen, with the occasional stem cell present, might be a potential mechanism for that route, though.

Related:
Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain
.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/

Autopsy study -- male DNA detected in 63% of female brains studied. Pregnancy history mostly unavailable, though.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants August 09, 2018 2:20 PM  

You know what this says to me? That we need MORE, not LESS, "wise Latinas" engineering bridges, ASAP.

Blogger Stan Dane August 09, 2018 4:05 PM  

@30. Well said, skipper. Naval Nuclear Power Program grad myself (7406). Electrical operator, EWS qualified, surface.

Blogger Artisanal Toad August 09, 2018 5:00 PM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:

The other positives were not direct testing for DNA, but for immunological response to male antigens (HY-specific T cells). This could indicate microchimerism -- but it's not direct proof.


I still believe there won't be any follow up studies that aggressively go after the sources of the microchimerism or determine if there is any chimerism.

Potential sources for male microchimerism in a female infant (other than an older sibling) include maternal blood transfusion (excluded in this study), maternal older brothers (i.e. maternal microchimerism) twin sibling of the mom that didn't make it/ was reabsorbed (relatively uncommon), and prior miscarriage (often early/ unrecognized). Early, unrecognized miscarriage is different mechanistically from sperm exposure alone, but the social implications are pretty similar, of course.

Let's not forget ABORTION, which might very well be the most common source if semen were to be ruled out, although I don't think it can be ruled out without doing some specific research. The point about feminism and political correctness is that I don't think such a study could be run for fear of what might be discovered under an honest protocol. OTOH, I could see a protocol being carefully designed to ensure that only the desired conclusions would be reached.

Blogger Unknown August 09, 2018 6:20 PM  

Follow the money trail. Whose payroll are these "scientists" on - the federal government directly, government sponsored grants, universities? They all share the same agenda and any admonitions coming from any of these government supported entities will promote government thought speak.

Blogger Doktor Jeep August 09, 2018 6:52 PM  

Sociology is not a science

Blogger DonReynolds August 09, 2018 8:05 PM  

One of the early examples of "science skepticism" among conservatives was the Rachel Carlson book (Silent Spring), which helped ban DDT from being used to fight malaria in much of the world. Millions of people have paid for that mistake with their lives, since there was nothing else nearly as effective as DDT in controlling the incidence of malaria. In addition, much of the claims made by Rachel Carlson against DDT have been pretty thoroughly debunked by actual SCIENCE. But Rachel did not lose her science qualifications because you see....she did not have any to start with. She wrote a work of actual science fiction and it was used to force a ban on DDT, even though she was by no means a biologist, nor was she educated in any scientific field. This is only one example of fake science having a profound impact on science policy and costing many people their lives. This was the actual genesis of the environmental movement in the USA.

Blogger DonReynolds August 09, 2018 8:14 PM  

Doktor Jeep wrote:Sociology is not a science

Agreed. Nor is Political Science. Nor is Economic Science (the actual name of the Nobel Prize). Nor is public opinion polling. Nor are any of the Social Sciences.

If the so-called "science" relies in any way on opinion or policy preference or politics or identity or any other pre-determined or other pre-conditioned prejudicial starting points, then it cannot be a science of any kind, no matter what statistical tools they use to manage their data.

Blogger MendoScot August 09, 2018 9:51 PM  

kurt9 wrote:This is the result of 70 years of government-funded science and its emphasis on publication over all else.

Publications as a metric were rejected by the academic community when the idea was first floated post-WWII and Manhattan. I was just entering research when it was finally accepted in the 80's. Everyone was pissed about it. They blamed the US and their obsession with CAPITALISM!

But the truth is, it was always an arrangement between University administrators and the government over funding. Look at the growth of administrator salaries over time if you don't believe me.

The Observer wrote:Perhaps there'll be a revival of real science, real empirical process, and science would become trustworthy again. But how likely is that?

It'll happen again when the motivation for scientists is once again discovering and understanding the nature of God through His creation, instead of grants, social status, social justice, and so forth.


Yes.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 09, 2018 11:49 PM  

@39

"
Let's not forget ABORTION, which might very well be the most common source if semen were to be ruled out, although I don't think it can be ruled out without doing some specific research. The point about feminism and political correctness is that I don't think such a study could be run for fear of what might be discovered under an honest protocol. OTOH, I could see a protocol being carefully designed to ensure that only the desired conclusions would be reached."

I'm a computer engineer. So I'm smart enough to understand why... but I'm ignorant of the reasons. Can you spell it out for us clueless folks?

Blogger Last Redoubt August 10, 2018 12:14 PM  

@30. Justaguy - odds are we weren't on the same boat, and I was one of the knuckledraggers back aft, but pleased to meet ya.

@38 you too Stan Dane

Blogger Greg Hunt August 13, 2018 8:34 PM  

And bridges collapse.

Blogger Greg Hunt August 13, 2018 8:42 PM  

I don't speak Latin; Google Translate has the difference being plural: Voice of the Peoples.

If this translation is correct, it ties right in with the altright. We're not one people. Humanity is not one single all encompassing breed.

Blogger Greg Hunt August 13, 2018 8:43 PM  

I don't think she was lying. She's just stupid.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts