ALA’s Vision for the Library’s Future is Not Even Its Own


The Libraries Transforming Communities vision is not even a vision that ALA created. It appears to be a vision adopted from one of The Harwood Institute’s programs with whom ALA is partnering to transform America’s libraries. What were they thinking? Obviously grasping at straws, but buying magic beans? SERIOUSLY?

ALA’s State of America’s Libraries Report 2014 includes a disturbing revelation that has actually been brewing for a couple of years, and is well along the way to indoctrinating new librarians. The Executive Summary espouses a vision of the library’s future, if you follow all the links to the source.

The ALA has made transformation a top priority. As libraries continue to transform in 2014, they deepen engagement with their communities in many ways, addressing current social, economic, and environmental issues, often through partnerships with governments and other organizations. Moving forward from being providers of books and information, public libraries now respond to a wide range of ongoing and emerging needs.

That “transformation” link goes to another article about ALA’s Libraries Transforming Communities (LTC), “groundbreaking libraries-as-change-agents initiative.” Read that again. Libraries-as-change-agents!

Through LTC, ALA will help the public library profession become more focused on and skilled at convening aspirational community conversations and more innovative in transforming internal practice to support fulfillment of community aspirations, and ALA will mirror that change internally, in its own processes. This work will help librarians become more reflective of and connected to their communities. It will help libraries to build stronger relationships with local civic agencies, non-profits, funders and corporations. It will yield greater community investment in civility, collaboration, education, health, and well-being.

ALA is working with the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation to develop and provide training opportunities and learning resources to support community engagement and innovation. The Harwood Institute has a vision of “turning outward” that emphasizes shifting the institutional and professional orientation of libraries and librarians from internal to external.

Libraries Transforming Communities is made possible through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. [BTW: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation helped make EDGE Benchmarks possible.]

Professor R. David Lankes and Barbara Stripling presented a webinar on March 8, 2012 “designed to stimulate conversation about harnessing the evolving role of libraries and strengthening the librarian’s voice to help shape community perception.” Barbara Stripling was Co-Chair of ALA (now Ex-) President Molly Raphael’s Empowering Voices, Transforming Communities task force, and is now ALA President for 2013-2014.

When Professor Lankes published “The Atlas of New Librarianship” in 2011 it was the greatest thing since sliced bread in library circles. Unfortunately, librarians were not reading it closely and really understanding what Lankes advocated. My critique was not so accepting of his advocacy of radical social activism. (Book Review: R. David Lankes – The Atlas of New Librarianship and Final Review: The Atlas of New Librarianship) To repeat my original critique; I was still hoping for something practical and useful in “The Atlas” when I came to the Knowledge section in the Facilitating Thread (which includes access, knowledge, environment, and motivation) where Lankes begins to develop the foundation for an argument in favor of all kinds of literacy. When I read it, I was shocked and appalled at the ideas he was advocating for librarians.

For librarians “To be ‘literate in’ means to be able to use something to gain power.” (pg. 75) Excuse me? Did I read that correctly? Unfortunately, YES! Lankes then continued on down a path I could not have imagined, and hopefully, neither could the vast majority of professional librarians. The lengthy quote that follows is essential not to break context and to fully understand the role he advocates for librarians. The role that ALA has adopted and is now advocating through The Harwood Institute.

Librarians can impart all the instruction they want on how to search and evaluate sources, but if we don’t also facilitate the knowledge of transforming all of that new knowledge into an effective conversation …, we have created a closed loop with limited benefit to the community in general. So information literacy must include the idea of conversation literacy. Indeed, concepts of new librarianship call for a host of expansions in all sorts of literacy.

… Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a handbook written by a far left radical during the unrest of the 1960s … is a fascinating read.

What I want to point out, however, is Alinsky’s take on the word “power.”

    There are a number of fundamental reasons for rejecting such substitutions [for the use of the word power]. First, by using combinations of words such as “harnessing the energy” instead of the single word “power,” we begin to dilute the meaning; and as we use purifying synonyms, we dissolve the bitterness, the anguish, the hate and love, the agony and the triumph attached to these words, leaving an aseptic imitation of life.


Power is not bad or evil. Alinsky would say the evil is when you don’t have power. Without power you don’t make decisions, things are decided for you. Librarians need to be powerful. They need to be able to shape agendas, lead the community, and empower members to do the same. We seek out power not as an end but as a means to make the world a better place. To serve, to truly serve, you need to be powerful so you can steward the community.

Why this trip through radicalism and political protest? Because it lies at the heart of how we are to interpret the role of literacy in librarianship. If we see the role of librarians as supplementing other educational processes (teaching reading in schools or literacy organizations, or supporting parents), then literacy is a somewhat limited concept. …

However, if we look at literacy as empowerment, literally to gain power, then we have a different take on literacy altogether. Librarians, I would agree, need to view literacy as a means of acquiring power – more often than not, power for the powerless. (pg. 74) [Emphasis added.]

Lankes admits that he is trying to shape ALA’s vision of the librarians role as social activist. His mission statement for New Librarianship reads; “The Mission of Librarians is to Improve Society….” He actually justifies his “trip through radicalism and political protest” because “it lies at the heart of how we are to interpret the role of literacy in librarianship.” SERIOUSLY? Since when does radicalism or political protest have any place in librarianship? And, he also advocates that librarians “seek out power … to make the world a better place. … to truly serve, you need to be powerful so you can steward the community.” is arguably the most arrogant attitude any profession could conceive. Then couple that power with Lankes’ idea that librarians should be present for ALL knowledge creation within the community and you have what sounds like something that is certainly not librarianship!

Now, what exactly is ALA’s Libraries Transforming Communities initiative that they are partnering with The Harwood Institute to sell to librarians? Harwood’s “Turning Outward” states;

Turning Outward makes the community and the people the reference point for getting things done.

Turning Outward impacts:

1) Engagement – Shifting who you see and include in your work and how you engage with them to create change.

2) Partners – Helping you gain clarity about the partners you need to move forward – and those that are holding you back.

3) Priorities – By understanding what space you occupy within the community, you no longer struggle to be all things to all people. Instead, you focus on what you can and should impact.

4) Strategies — How you develop and implement strategies that reflect the context of your community and people’s shared aspirations – and not to get so entangled in programs and activities.

5) Communications – Reframing how you talk about your work and impact, so that it is relevant to people and their concerns – and how you can contribute to a more productive community narrative.

6) Organizational Culture – By Turning Outward you can align and drive internal efforts around shared aspirations and shared language, which makes it easier to work across departments and get things done.
[Emphasis added.]

Sprinkled throughout their six-point approach to transforming librarianship are innuendos that are contradictory to everything that libraries stand for. Changing who we include in our work so that we can change society? Aren’t libraries supposed to be all-inclusive? And change society into what? Into some librarians idea of what their community should be? Only partner with organizations that can help the library and avoid any that might “hold you back”? And, who might those organizations be that would hold back the library from serving ALL the citizens within their community? We should no longer struggle to be all things to all people? SERIOUSLY? So libraries should only serve some select tax payers, and ignore the interests of ALL its taxpayers? And, by all means let’s STOP getting entangled in programs and activities!

What in the name of S.R. Ranganathan has gotten into ALA? Since when has librarianship been about radical activism, or totally focused on “changing society”? Since when has librarianship been about gaining power in the community and deciding what improvement society needs? Since when has librarianship been about exclusivity?

If this is where 21st Century librarianship is headed, I want no part of it. I will not be the librarian that ALA’s visions and programs are espousing. I will not impose my personal biases (and don’t think for one second that you don’t have any, because everyone has them) on my community and judge what improvements it needs. Especially not when it is paying my salary to serve it.

If ALA has any perception that librarianship is lacking a clear identity, then they are clearly clueless about what it should be. In fact, they are so clueless that they are willing to buy some program from The Harwood Institute and adopt Professor Lankes’ New Librarianship, both approaches that will surely destroy any resemblance of what librarianship is in favor of creating a library workforce intent on changing the world. Change the world to what?

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “ALA’s Vision for the Library’s Future is Not Even Its Own

  1. Conversations on Transforming Libraries are Highlights of ALA 2012 Midwinter Meeting,” by R David Lankes, Virtual Dave…Real Blog, 19 November 2011.

    Librarians as Change Agents,” by R David Lankes, Virtual Dave…Real Blog, 18 November 2011.

    A New Librarianship For a New Age,” by R David Lankes, Virtual Dave…Real Blog, 21 November 2011.

  2. This critique would have a lot more punch if you did a little research. I have no (nor have I ever had) any relationship with the Harwood Institute.

    Hint: It’s called the Harwood Institute for a reason.

    • My mistake. I was misinformed. Thanks for the correction. I have posted an addendum and apology. I hope you’re doing well.
      Was I incorrect that you’ve been trying to influence ALA’s thinking on this issue for a couple of years now toward your World View of New Librarianship – Alinsky and all?

    • Dave, since you are kind enough to write here, setting aside the Harwood error, would you please address the substantive issues raised by Dr. Matthews? For just one example, and please don’t be limited by this one example, Dr. Matthews says, “Only partner with organizations that can help the library and avoid any that might ‘hold you back’?” That smacks of censorship. Of First Amendment Rights for some and not for others. In the library world, this is particularly egregious. In another context, consider how Yale University would not allow a student group to join the school’s “Social Justice Network.” For the first time any group was blocked, “Choose Life at Yale” was blocked because it would “divert funds away from groups that do important work pursuing actual social justice.” ( http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5557 ) I suppose advocating to minimize the number of dead babies is not actual social justice. Now that sounds a lot like “Only partner with organizations that can help the library and avoid any that might ‘hold you back.'” Is this what you are suggesting, Dave, that libraries should choose which social causes to promote and which to avoid? Thanks for responding (if you see this message).

      • Sorry, posted under a different account. Rilandpub is me.

      • A response…first I can’t post on just the issues raised without first commenting on the contraction of the post’s argument. The post does a great job of mashing together a couple of different documents by a couple of different authors and assumes that all have the same agenda and take (and all attributed to me). There is the State of America’s Libraries, then the Libraries Transform Communities. I didn’t write them, though that is neither an endorsement nor do I refute what’s in there. Then there’s the Atlas…and the Alinsky thing again. I’ll come back to that here, but Steve provided links to his posts that have my responses, so if you want more, please enjoy. Then the Harwood document Turning Outward that was never constructed with libraries in mind and is part of Rich Harwood’s work with communities of all sorts.

        Now, I believe Steve’s point isn’t about who wrote the documents, but an observation that ALA seems to be shifting their approach, and in a direction he clearly doesn’t approve of. Is my work part of that change? I hope so.

        Now for some more specific responses. If you know how to read, you have power. You have more power than someone who is illiterate. If you teach someone to read, you must first have the power yourself, and then you must be willing to share it (empower). Does Alinsky say that? Sure. Does he then go much much much further? Yup. Do I go much much much much further? Nope. Alinsky gets downright Machiovellian to an extreme I would never go or endorse. Citation to a work in and of itself is not an endorsement. That’s why I quote the parts I am advocating for.

        From other back and forth with Steve, we clearly have a different view on empowerment, you can read those at http://quartz.syr.edu/blog/?p=3804.

        Now, for some of the specifics:

        “Aren’t libraries supposed to be all-inclusive?”
        I’m going to assume we’re talking about public libraries here, because me walking into my school library and demanding they carry 50 Shades of Grey doesn’t quite jibe. Also, let’s be clear that we are talking about librarians not libraries. Libraries are abstractions or physical structures, and it is the choices of the people responsible for libraries that we are questioning. Should they be all-inclusive? They can’t be. No one has the budget or the manpower to be all things to all people. We make selection decisions and weeding decisions all the time. We should do them with intellectual honesty, but let’s not pretend they aren’t choices of whom to serve. Do we have cocktail hours in the evenings for our billionaires? No. Can they use the services of the library? Sure.

        And change society into what?
        Something that better matches the aspiration of the community. I hope that means more rational, less politically devise, and more supporting of a strong middle class – BUT THAT IS JUST MY VOTE. It is up to the community to decide. And they do so all the time. Story hours, summer reading programs, maker spaces, outreach to hospitals, all of these represent a view of an improved society. Libraries used to not carry fiction, but society deemed access to this type of material useful and supported it (no doubt over the wishes of several librarians).

        Into some librarians idea of what their community should be?
        This is where Steve and I disagree, but not on what you expect. I don’t agree with how Steve interprets my work here. Librarians facilitate community knowledge, they don’t dictate it. He turns this back to my argument that librarians need power. They do need power, but not to further their own goals, but to further that of the community. If the community wants a lending library, they give the librarians the money and the authority (power) to spend it. This is very different than jack booted librarians marching on the towns folks stealing money and spending it only on copies of the communist manifesto.

        We elect mayors to further our community development. We establish laws and regulations for the good of the people. Why are these ideas when applied to librarianship somehow foreign?

        Only partner with organizations that can help the library and avoid any that might “hold you back”?
        Having a library actively seek out a partner is not the same as bridging first amendment rights or blacklisting an organization. But, to be honest, this is the work and words of the Harwood Institute, and I don’t want to mischaracterize their position.

        And, who might those organizations be that would hold back the library from serving ALL the citizens within their community?
        The Klu Klux Klan, Stormfront, NAMBLA. I know this sounds like extreme examples, but they are in communities, and libraries have done OK accommodating their first amendment rights without actively supporting their causes.

        We should no longer struggle to be all things to all people?
        In the Atlas Steve references I talk about a comment card left at a public library. The card asked folks to tell the library how they could better serve them. The response of one card was “more pie and prostitutes.” When you seek to serve everyone, you end up serving no one well. Libraries can’t be book repositotires, and maker spaces, and teaching centers, and day care, and computer camps, and homeless shelters, and political parties, and ice cream shops, and gun clubs…just in case there is a community member that might need that service. They should focus on how knowledge is created and facilitated, and do so in a way that matches the capabilities and desires of the community.

        Will a community always have a focused single vision? No. Can libraries help mediate the discussion to arrive at common goals? Yes. If not everyone in the community shares those common goals, should the library shut down? No.

        The idea that libraries used to, or even should do something that is absent of choice or decision-making on the part of the librarian is ludicrous. Using tax funds to create a common lending library is far from a neutral act. Taking the chains off of the books and opening the stacks to browsing was never a neutral act. It took power and activism to make it happen, even if no one shouted.

        • Thanks. This is why I love to hear from all sides and why I love to stick to the issues. Thanks. I think you both make good points.

          • Thank you SafeLibraries. We haven’t been introduced, but I appreciate you instigating the conversation.

            Actually, libraries and librarians are about as synonymous as it gets David. Libraries would not be libraries without librarians, therefore librarians make the library what it is. Don’t you embrace the concept that a room with just a librarian and nothing else is still a library? So………..

            David and I agree that excluding any stakeholders from any conversation about the library is no more about censorship than the collection development example he used. Yes, censorship can creep into any endeavor within a library or any other organization, but it shouldn’t. This disagreement is about exclusivity and community activism that ALA has adopted as its new vision from The Harwood Institute. Libraries can not be exclusive in any form, and as employees of the community paid by tax funds, librarians should not be community activists. David and I disagree in the extreme when it comes to not including all stakeholders within a community. His exclusivity creeps into his description of his “new librarianship” mission. In the Facilitating thread in his “Atlas”, he describes how libraries of the people provide Access, become “publisher” of communities, share shelf space, and provide meeting space – of monumental importance.
            “Bringing people together for conversations, particularly the right people, is how things get done…. … [Independence Hall in Philadelphia] was a Spartan room with simple tables. No more than 50 or so people could cram themselves into the space, …. Yet in this small space something remarkable happened. A few of the right people came together and changed the world. Librarians must use this power of convening to improve their communities. They must provide access to the right members.” (pg. 69-70)

            I’m compelled to point out that this was not the best example for the importance of meeting spaces, because this analogy seriously breaks down his previous assertions about the importance of librarians facilitating the “knowledge creation” conversation. I can’t help but wonder whether there were any librarians among the delegates who drafted, discussed and adopted the Declaration of Independence, and whether they truly “need[ed a librarian] to be there helping the community formulate their agreements, helping them discuss it, helping them document it, and then helping them implement it.” (pg. 60)

            Once written, it’s hard to retract what a person believes. “Power is not bad or evil. Alinsky would say the evil is when you don’t have power. Without power you don’t make decisions, things are decided for you. Librarians need to be powerful. They need to be able to shape agendas, lead the community, and empower members to do the same. We seek out power not as an end but as a means to make the world a better place. To serve, to truly serve, you need to be powerful so you can steward the community.” Although you claim now to not embrace Alinsky’s philosophy about power, page 74 of your “Atlas” certainly sounds like it to me. “Why this trip through radicalism and political protest? Because it lies at the heart of how we are to interpret the role of literacy in librarianship. If we see the role of librarians as supplementing other educational processes (teaching reading in schools or literacy organizations, or supporting parents), then literacy is a somewhat limited concept. … pg. 74″ Obviously, your view of librarianship has to be more, much, much more. I wonder of Putin was a librarian in a former life? Talk about power and controlling the conversation.

            • Libraries and librarians should be synonymous, just many folks forget that.

              The importance of meeting spaces, and the role librarians play within in them are two different things. I’m enough of a fan of Jefferson to believe he could do most things without the aid of a librarian (including re-creating the largest library in the world). I do not have the same belief about the entire population. It is a logical fallacy to equate me saying that librarians are important in facilitating knowledge creation with me saying that librarians are essential in ALL knowledge creation.

              I am not walking back my assertions that:

              1. Alinsky is an interesting read.
              2. That activism and political protest stand at the center of libraries (after all, Carnegie had advocacy in mind when he supported the building of libraries…service for all is activism, as is the concept of using community funds for the larger good).
              3. That power is necessary to empower, and librarians are therefore in the power game if they seek to expand literacy of any sort.
              4. Literacy efforts are not about enabling people simply to read, but enabling people to better control their lives.

              As for the Putin comment, I just hope that the people of Russia and the Ukraine feel they are empowered through knowledge and have librarians fighting for their rights to free and open access to information.

              • Food for thought for you two.

                ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] is getting millions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute [OSI] or whatever its current name is to convert libraries into community centers for the creation of and distribution of news. George Soros. Creation of news. This is the big funder of Media Matters for America. Sharyl Attkisson formerly of CBS revealed jet this week, perhaps today, that MMFA feeds stories to journalists and otherwise assists in getting its political messages out, but goes on the attack if you do not toe the MMFA line. Now the same Soros is funding ALA to do essentially the same thing, only with the pretty face of the ALA instead of OSI.

                And I’ll add this. ALA OIF is working to advise communities how to thwart the law so as to ensure porn stays in the library. I am working on getting breathtaking evidence now of this in writing. It will definitely shock all librarians of good conscience, and that nearly all of them. I have it verbally but I need it in writing to let people see for themselves.

                Further, ALA generally guides libraries to block materials they feel themselves is fringe. Like books about ex-gays. Ex-gays cannot get their material into libraries and ALA OIF will not assist despite being repeatedly asked, despite people like Annoyed Librarian speaking out about this, PFOX, etc.

                So, from what I’m hearing of this conversation, and from what I see like OIF advising how to skirt the law in a possible illegal and unethical fashion, I have a legitimate concern that ALA is using its power to further guide librarians into more effectively blocking messages it does not want people to hear and amplifying messages it does want to get across.

                Then I see this blog post and the responses here and I only have a deepening concern.

                And sometimes librarians themselves are trampled by ALA’s OIF rush to promote its ACLU agenda (via Illinois ACLU board member Judith Krug who joined ALA, created OIF, and changed how librarians approached children). Librarians are sexually harassed as a result of unfettered porn in the library, as a result of ALA OIF policy, as a result of the ACLU, as a result of Judith Krug. Lawsuit after lawsuit wins or settles for big money, and the EEOC has decided in favor of the harassed librarians. Yet just a month or so ago OIF basically stated such suits do not exist and librarians are hardly ever sexually harassed and if they are its near impossible to prove anyway.

                So when I hear what Dr. Matthews is reporting, I have a sinking feeling ALA is merely tightening its grip on librarians with this new program that it appears to be inspired in part by David. Dr. Lankes? That’s why I’m asking questions here so I can understand things better.

                And when Dr. Matthews reports ALA just took the idea from someone else essentially without attribution, that is totally believable to me. For example, the OIF’s “Censorship Map” touted on “Banned Books Week” was plagiarized from some school kid who admitted the map was substandard and he was playing just around with the software.

                If you want links to any of the above, let me know. And I see my name is “SafeLibraries” but I’m Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog at SafeLibraries. Nice to meet both of you, and the other commenters here. I appear in the latest edition of ALA OIF’s “Intellectual Freedom Manual,” not favorably, and the author of the Children’s Internet Protection Act called me a “trusted source” on how ALA OIF misleads communities into allowing porn despite the law. So I’m here trying to understand the issues better before possibly writing a blog post on this. So sincerely, thank you both of you for having this conversation.

                • SL, I certainly empathize with your concern for our profession, and frankly I am also shocked that ALA OIF is so blatantly biased and pressing agendas like that.

                  However, I have to correct your perception of anything I might have written that you construed as me claiming that “ALA just took the idea from someone else essentially without attribution.” My blog title simply stated that ALA adopted a vision that was not even of their own creation – they borrowed it from The Harwood Institute. Thus, my lead into the post “What were they thinking? Obviously grasping at straws, but buying magic beans?”

                  I did not even imply that ALA borrowed it without attribution. In fact the quote states that ALA is partnering with Harwood regarding its “Turning Outward” program. I provided quotes from ALA regarding their “transformation” initiative and the link that goes to another article about ALA’s Libraries Transforming Communities (LTC), “groundbreaking libraries-as-change-agents initiative.” ALA QUOTE – Through LTC, ALA will help the public library profession become more focused on and skilled at convening aspirational community conversations and more innovative in transforming internal practice to support fulfillment of community aspirations, and ALA will mirror that change internally, in its own processes. …. ALA is working with the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation to develop and provide training opportunities and learning resources to support community engagement and innovation. The Harwood Institute has a vision of “turning outward” that emphasizes shifting the institutional and professional orientation of libraries and librarians from internal to external. – END QUOTE

                  The six points of concern from Harwood’s program came from its website at: Turning Outward. All librarians should be concerned about the role of librarianship that ALA or any organization is advocating, especially when it clearly has what appear to be political biases.

  3. Anastasia Weigle

    Well, let’s step back and take a look at the bigger picture here. I want to say back in the 60s or early 70s, Library Science took a side step into social movement and as technology grew, libraries continue to focus on the practical side of librarianship and its involvement in society (which is a good thing!) Librarians were not interested in how technology could advance the information science field (too bad :( ) This created a split where library science was the practical application of theory and practice and information science was more IT and CS—think CDRom towers and search queries. Past librarians need to catch up with technology as do new librarians. I believe the future of libraries is information technology (managing knowledge) and participating with CS in creating/designing better databases at the backend of design (think algorithms that find data) and at the front end (think HCI and interface). Librarians being more and more involved with thier community is very, very important and I am all over that, but I am also an information scientist, not a social worker—yes, some librarians are like social workers. However, I believe I can empower my community through involvement at a personal level and a at technology level. I think that using technology to empower communities to discern information by understanding how to disseminate it is extremely radical.

    • Thank you. That’s very interesting information. I guess the “social movement” side of library science was gone by the time I went though library school in the 90s. But, who wasn’t into social movements back in the 60s and 70s? I fail to see your connection between technology and radical social activism in the librarianship of the 21st Century, unless you’re trying to make a case that providing information technology to library users is in some way radical activism. The advance of technology for information access and dissemination is simply that – an advance in the use of technology.

  4. Your correction about David’s position is bush league. Since it is part of your premise, it should be corrected throughout.

  5. I find it difficult to believe in the ALA having just received a Bachelors in Library Science and looking at the ALA Joblist. It appears everyone thinks you need to have a MLS or MLIS to be a Librarian yet a lot of the jobs fit those who have a Bachelors. There is this arrogance that people with Masters already have the technology edge needed when that is far from the truth so the one who has that knowledge can’t even get an Interview. The ALA headquarters routinely posts jobs at their office that only require a Bachelors Degree so they can save money yet a library who can’t afford more Librarians posts everyone has to have a Masters Degree. When Librarians are teaching patrons to find their own sources using the OPAC the level of importance is diminished. It’s not a profession as critical as the medical field or even Law. The ALA is driving young ILS students away by not accepting them and bringing them into the fold. You can’t believe in an organization that won’t recognize you and the work you put in.

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