PalinSpeak: Why does she talk that way?

….” But Palin, doing this even when speaking to the whole nation, is no further outside of her head than we are when talking about what’s going on at work over a beer. The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

 

By John McWhorter

Why does Sarah Palin talk the way she does? Just what is this sort of thing below?

We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?

Just forty years ago people would be shocked to read something like this as a public statement from someone even pretending, as Palin pretty much had to have been by the time of this quote, that they were going to be serving in a Presidential Administration.

It’s not quite Bushspeak, which, with the likes of “I know what it’s like to put food on my family,” was replete with flagrantly misplaced words with a frequency that made for guesses, not completely in jest, that he might suffer from a mild form of Wernicke’s aphasia, interfering with matching word shapes to meanings. (Bush the father wasn’t much better in this regard—there just wasn’t an internet to make collecting the slips and spreading them around so easy.)

Rather, Palin is given to meandering phraseology of a kind suggesting someone more commenting on impressions as they enter and leave her head rather than constructing insights about them. Or at least, insights that go beyond the bare-bones essentials of human cognition — an entity (i.e. something) and a predicate (i.e. something about it).

.

.

.

What truly distinguishes Palin’s speech is its utter subjectivity: that is, she speaks very much from the inside of her head, as someone watching the issues from a considerable distance. The there fetish, for instance — Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended “there,” as in “We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there…” But where? Why the distancing gesture? At another time, she referred to Condoleezza Rice trying to “forge that peace.” That peace? You mean that peace way over there — as opposed to the peace that you as Vice-President would have been responsible for forging? She’s far, far away from that peace.

All of us use there and that in this way in casual speech — it’s a way of placing topics as separate from us on a kind of abstract “desktop” that the conversation encompasses. “The people in accounting down there think they can just ….” But Palin, doing this even when speaking to the whole nation, is no further outside of her head than we are when talking about what’s going on at work over a beer. The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

This reminds me of toddlers who speak from inside their own experience in a related way: they will come up to you and comment about something said by a neighbor you’ve never met, or recount to you the plot of an episode of a TV show they have no way of knowing you’ve ever heard of. Palin strings her words together as if she were doing it for herself — meanings float by, and she translates them into syntax in whatever way works, regardless of how other people making public statements do it.

You see this in one of my favorites, her take on Hillary Clinton’s complaint about sexism in media coverage:

When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country.

For one thing, the that again. And then “that” use of perceived: properly it would be “perceived criticism,” wouldn’t it, rather than a “perceived whine”? All whines worthy of note, we assume, are perceived — whines unperceived don’t make the news and thus do not require specification as such. There are two explanations for how Palin used perceived here.

She may have meant that she perceived the whine despite its being perhaps disguised in some way, in which case she just plopped in the perceived part when it occurred to her, which was apparently after it would have been logically placed, earlier in the utterance, such as in place of hear in “When I hear a statement …” It’s almost deft — she thought of perception, and plugged it in before whine by rendering it into an adjective as perceived. In any case, though, this is someone watching thoughts go by at a certain distance and gluing them together willy-nilly — for the first time.

Or, she may have meant “perceived criticism,” but thought of the perception early, and instead of waiting, just stuck it in early. It’s a kind of linguistic silly string — and in that, hardly unknown among ordinary people just talking. But it’s a searching kind of expression, preliminary, unauthoritative. To a strangely extreme degree for someone making public utterances with confidence.

Then if you read the quote straight it sounds like she means women shouldn’t progress. But what happened is that she thought first of the complaint, and then tacked on a reference to women progressing; in her own head she thinks of it as something good, but she perceived no need to make that clear to those listening. She in there, in her head.

"And Alaska — we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources,” Palin will tell us, where the fact that it is not, in blackboard sense, a sentence at all is only the beginning. She means that the arrangement in Alaska is collective, but when it occurs to her she’s about to say Alaskans such that “collective Alaskans” would make no sense. So, if it can’t be an adjective, heck, just make it an adverb — “it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources.”

Palinspeak is a flashlight panning over thoughts, rather than thoughts given light via considered expression. It bears mentioning that short sentences and a casual tone can still convey information and planned thought.

Read More

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

60 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Syrin from Wasilla
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 15:21:00

    Wow… The 'there' fetish…Does that not say it all?
    Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended “there,” as in “We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there…”
    But where, Sarah? Where?

    Reply

  2. Snowy
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 16:19:00

    But it's all about Sarah, isn't it.

    Reply

  3. ken
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 17:33:00

    just another direct reaction/defense of good lord obama's constant use of ''i'' and ''me'' where palin see's herself as part of the whole and asks for their help and consent,obama seems to think he's king and will do what he know you'll like,even if you've told him you don't like it….

    Reply

  4. Syrin from Wasilla
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 17:59:00

    Ken,
    I like your avatar!!
    ..where palin see's herself as part of the whole and asks for their help and consent?
    OMG– Would you please be intellectually honest! Sarah Palin is nothing but an impediment to a reasonable and moral society…

    Reply

  5. Syrin from Wasilla
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 18:04:00

    I'm sorry I failed to mention that Sarah does not ask or consider. The article speaks to the fact that Sarah Palin cannot communicate these deep held beliefs of people. She's playing on them and playing you..

    The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

    Reply

  6. ken
    Apr 06, 2010 @ 18:38:00

    my avatar is a picture of a baby squirell that climbed up my leg when i walked outside a couple of weeks ago,he is now with the aspca and will be returned to the wild when he's full grown,and he had the double benefit of chasing off endeesea,being the beer nut that he is:)
    when obama was getting started he used alot of ''us'' and ''we'' now its all ''i'' and ''me''.. there is some uncertainty to palins way of talking but she keeps getting better over time, on the other hand obama's headed in the other direction………

    Reply

  7. sjohnson
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 03:56:00

    "Palinspeak is a flashlight panning over thoughts, rather than thoughts given light via considered expression." I believe that is the best description of Palin's verbal thoughts that I have ever heard. Terrific article, Syrin. Does the whole family speak this way? I have always thought that the half-term gov had a significant learning disability that prevented her from stringing coherent sentences together. However, maybe she is just stupid.

    Reply

  8. sjohnson
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 04:01:00

    I will take Obama's intellect and "I" and "me" over Palin's empty head and her spreading of hate and discontent any day. Blaming and mindless viciousness have become a recreational activity for her.

    Reply

  9. sjohnson
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 04:07:00

    She's getting better over time? Where is the evidence of that? Every speech is basically the same. She uses the same talking points and same tired jokes.

    Reply

  10. ManxMamma
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 07:59:00

    Excellent post.

    Reply

  11. Anne NC
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 08:11:00

    It may be, Ken, that you're wishing that she had become better over time but there's no sign of it in her speeches.

    Reply

  12. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 13:22:00

    thats just it,obama is a talking head,his handlers won't even let him speak now without a teleprompter,he got elected to state office and hardly ever showed up,he got elected to u.s. senate and voted present on 90% of the votes,they claim he was editor of the harvard review but he was the president which is much like being miss congeniality,he never had anything published,his records at any college he said he went to are locked,and nobody remembers him,when you went to ask people about clinton everybody remembered the rhodes scholar that he was,but obama is like a ghost,nobody but his socialist buddy's remember even seeing him,obama is a talking head with no substance,

    Reply

  13. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 13:24:00

    look at her first speeches for mccain and watch her now,look at obamas first speeches and watch them now,he's going insane if you ask me.

    Reply

  14. Snowy
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 13:40:00

    Obama has achieved health care reform in the U.S. which no Republican had even attempted. What is Palin's "thoughts" on health care in the U.S.? Does she think it's necessary? If so, what does she think should be done? Let me see now. Ken's response will be a diatribe against socialists, fascists, Marxists, communists, but will it contain an answer to the above? No.And BTW, do you think that baby squirrel was attracted to a nut, ken?

    Reply

  15. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 14:33:00

    the republicans had a plan on the table since before reagan,they blocked it everytime,the only thing they would settle for is a government takeover,which is what socialists want with everything,they want uncle sam to cloth them feed them and house them,much like a herd of sheep.
    palin wants a private industry response,which is part of the american ethics,not another government takeover,which is the old feudel system,forward thinking,not going back to the dark ages,where a all powerfull lord or baron controlled everything.
    that squirrel knew where it could go for help,on three sides i have liberals,and he came to the house where he could get honest help..

    Reply

  16. Snowy
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 15:59:00

    Heh, heh, heh. As predicted, another diatribe against those pesky socialists.

    Reply

  17. sjohnson
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 16:08:00

    Well Ken, looking at your response to me and several others, it is quite apparent that nothing anyone could say or prove will change your mind. I think that if someone brought a cargo ship of evidence disproving your beliefs, you would still discount it. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. I think your cute squirrel avatar is a perfect symbol for you.

    Reply

  18. Anne NC
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 16:18:00

    The remarks about the teleprompter that are repeatedly used by President Obama's detractors don't hold water when you consider that EVERY President has used them and Palin used them during the campaign (although now she has her speech written out on paper or index cards). However, to think he cannot speak extemporaneously is to forget how he schooled the Republicans when they invited him to speak to them back in February. He spoke for over an hour, answered questions which were not pre-screened (unlike Palin) and was able to expand on policy with facts and figures without notes or assistance. Do you think Palin could do that? I'd bet the house against her ability to do so. She has not shown any signs of depth although I will say that her speech at the convention was done extremely well. We all know that these politicians for the most part have their speeches written for them but it has been said by those WH staff that President Obama has a great deal of input into his speeches. Palin's lack any substance whatsoever.

    To say the Republicans had a plan in place before Reagan is B.S. Why did they not speak about it, let alone try to pass it while they held control during Bush's term? Because they do not care about the American people unless we're speaking of the wealthy. You can deny it all you like but they have proven this time and again in their efforts to defeat anything which gives aid to those who need it. There was no government takeover of healthcare as you put it. The government does not employ physicians or own the hospitals. That myth is dead.

    Reply

  19. Snowy
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 16:46:00

    (although now she has her speech written out on paper or index cards).Or hand. ;o)

    Reply

  20. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 16:51:00

    you ignore the fact that the republicans have been trying to make healthcare better for over 30 years,so all i heard was blah,blah,blah……socialist utopia…………..you've got it in your head that the government is the answer to everything,and anything short of that is not good enough,i hope you enjoy your peonship life………some people prefer to be free no matter how much you tell them slavery is good…

    Reply

  21. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 16:52:00

    you like that do you,i think it just became my mascot,it will chase off all the acorns and other assorted nuts.

    Reply

  22. ken
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 17:02:00

    are you talking about that farce of a healthcare summit,when obama talked for a hour,the dems talked for a hour and the rep. spoke for a half hour,yea,thats the idea of fairness i see coming from the white house and the democratic party,he had notes right in front of him ,he had at least two people leaning in and prompting him, he would be lost without all the help he gets.
    the republicans had a plan…thats a fact…..what do you think that sheaf of papers was in their hands in the last two sotu,what do you think that was placed in front of every republican in that sham of a healthcare summit,the only thing that wasn't in the republican plan was a government takeover,which is the only thing the dems. and the president would accept

    Reply

  23. sjohnson
    Apr 07, 2010 @ 20:53:00

    Ummm, no Ken, I believe that was at the Republican retreat.

    Reply

  24. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 00:11:00

    So, let me get this clear, ken, Government can't trusted to deal with health care, but they can be trusted with national security? And how come the military, government workers, and members of Congress get to enjoy "socialistic" health care, but it isn't suitable for anyone else?

    Reply

  25. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 01:16:00

    snowy,you really need to go get a copy of the united states constitution and read it,we do not and have never wanted a bloated federal government,it is one of the hall marks of our nation,there is a provision for national defense and a law making tripod,roads,and a post office,and nothing else,and nothing else.the rest is just creeping socialism and should be done away with,when congress finally gets that idea,and they will,then we will get back on the path that was set out for this country.you saying its already screwed up,so lets screw it up all together,is illogical and immoral..all things not directly related to the rights and obligations set out in the constitution are illegal and need to be viewed that way.

    Reply

  26. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 01:31:00

    That is not an answer. Have another go. I'll ask the question again. So, let me get this clear, ken, Government can't trusted to deal with
    health care, but they can be trusted with national security? And how
    come the military, government workers, and members of Congress get to
    enjoy "socialistic" health care, but it isn't suitable for anyone else?

    Reply

  27. Anne NC
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 04:50:00

    I had left a reply to this last evening in regards to the fact that I was referring to the Republican summit. Can you tell me if it was deleted or omitted for some reason, please?

    Reply

  28. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 12:53:00

    that you don't like the answer,that you as a socialist don't understand the answer,doesn't allow you to dismiss the answer,there are about a half a dozen things the federal government are alloed to do,all others are illegal,that they are being allowed to break the law is a problem of the present and previous congress's ,to say that the law has already been broken,so lets keep doing it,is amoral…………..your asking about trust is also illogical,the constitution allows them to conduct national security it does not allow them to get into healthcare,national security is part of the job description as set out by the constitution,healthcare is not.what i don't trust is a president and a congress that are breaking the law.

    Reply

  29. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 15:31:00

    Still no coherent answer, so move on. So you are saying that that the military, government workers, and members of congress are breaking the law because they enjoy "socialistic" health care. So is Saint Sarah going to stop all this socialistic law breaking? Links please.

    Reply

  30. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 15:53:00

    please,read the constitution so you can talk from a point of knowledge,the military is allowed by the consitution,the rest is not,every member of the federal government that is getting free healthcare or cheap healthcare is breaking the law of the land.they have no legal reason for it.trying to throw the military in with government workers is wrong,our constitution has some very clearly stated ideas about that.again read it and then comment about what the differences are.

    Reply

  31. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 15:58:00

    Still no coherent answer. As usual. Goodbye ken.

    Reply

  32. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 16:04:00

    you can try to cut the cheese anyway you want but it's still going to be called cheese,and it still stinks.

    Reply

  33. sjohnson
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 18:55:00

    Give it up, Snowy. Ken thinks he is a constitutional lawyer. While the constitution may not address health care, it also does not prohibit it. It is a living document that is meant to be amended and molded as the majority of the land sees fit. As for socialism, I have to assume that holier-than-thou Ken will not call the fire department if his house should ever catch on fire. He won't be accepting Medicare either or a government backed mortgage. He won't be calling the police if his house is burglarized, right? No social security for Ken either or disability if he becomes disabled or unemployment if he should lose his job. Yes, I can see that is definitely a much better way to go, don't you agree, Snowy?

    Reply

  34. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 19:32:00

    you can try to cut the cheese anyway you want but it's still going to be called cheese,and it still stinks. Wow! That's deep, ken. <cough> Real deep…

    Reply

  35. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 20:10:00

    ''while the constitution doesn't prohibit it'',what does this mean,as long as there is no sign that says you can't your going to do it,if i had a apple tree on my property you wouldn 't have any problem just walking up and taking some apples,no thought,no morals, it's there for the taking,and your going to take,
    the constitution is not a ''living document'' its a set of rules,its a guideline to how the country should be run,it and the bill of rights were set up to keep the government as small as possible,they wanted nothing to do with a powerfull centralized government.
    the police and fire are state controlled and have nothing to do with the federal government,and their are still plenty of volunteer fire departments in this country,including n.y. city and boston,will i ever have a government backed mortgage no i'm not that idiotic,not to mention the freddies are bankrupt,medicare is broke and will most likely not be there should i ever need it,not to mention my $20 dollar a week insurance will be given to me when i retire,not to mention i have not been in a hospital since i was seven years old,and ss. is broke and also will most likely not be there when i might use it,and my 401 is everything i need,now do you see the common string there,all things taken care of by people helping people or by private companys,i don't see and will not ask the government to be my mommy and daddy,you however insist on it…and this just in from the c.b.o. the government is not financially sustainable…..in other words it is now BROKE……thanks.

    Reply

  36. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 20:11:00

    hey,i give what i get,you stop cutting the cheese and it will stop stinking………

    Reply

  37. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 20:14:00

    We all know that there is no point engaging with ken, except to give him the opportunity to put his mind blowing ignorance on display. And he never fails to disappoint. Responses never vary. First, there is no attempt to respond to the comment in any meaningful way. The response is always a mish mash of tangled verbiage revolving around ken's passionate belief that anyone who disagrees with his conservative viewpoint must then be a socialist, communist, Marxist, fascist or whatever big word comes to mind.If he really gets cornered, then he retreats to the tired old conservative fallback, the Constitution. It still hasn't dawned that the Constitution and the was written by, <gasp!> liberals.

    Reply

  38. Snowy
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 20:16:00

    It still hasn't dawned that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was written by, liberals.

    Reply

  39. ken
    Apr 08, 2010 @ 20:40:00

    liberals,nooooooo…….realists,yes………………

    Reply

  40. sjohnson
    Apr 09, 2010 @ 04:14:00

    I especially liked this comment of Ken's: "republicans have been trying to make healthcare better for over 30 years," Oh really? Please explain that one. That ranks right up there with the Republican claim that government grows under Democrats, implying that it shrinks under Republicans. That is a lie of the right that has been debunked more than once.

    Reply

  41. Snowy
    Apr 09, 2010 @ 05:00:00

    Yes, you do wonder if he really believes it all, or just makes it up as he goes along, sj. Sad case, either way.

    Reply

  42. ken
    Apr 09, 2010 @ 19:12:00

    that you hide your head in the sand and chant marxist mantra's everytime the truth is told,doesn't make it any less the truth,you have been linked many times to sites that prove thses points and you choose to ignore them,when they put you out to pature and tell you your state job is now to keep the grass frm getting to high maybe then you will believe it,until then stop trying to steal my freedoms.

    Reply

  43. sjohnson
    Apr 09, 2010 @ 22:13:00

    "…you have been linked many times to sites that prove thses points …" that's a verifiable load of moose nuggets on your part. You have no way of knowing who I am on other blogs. As I have said before, Bully-boy, I use this name on your blog and Syrin's. In your sick, little mind, you are the only one who knows the truth and the rest of the world is fascist, marxist, socialist, communist. A bit narcissistic, don't you think? Do you even know what those terms mean? I also noticed that when you threw out your misinformation about the abortion rate and I disproved it AND gave you the link to see for yourself, something you never do, you had nothing to say. You couldn't even admit you were wrong. Can you spell "hypocrite"? It is becoming more and more apparent, Bully-boy, that you and Palin share many of the NPD characteristics.

    Reply

  44. sjohnson
    Apr 09, 2010 @ 22:15:00

    Yes, he appears to be a very angry, bitter, delusional man. That makes it hard to take anything he says seriously.

    Reply

  45. cancangirl
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 19:31:00

    Sjohnson, have you always wanted the Government to wipe your a$$??

    Reply

  46. cancangirl
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 19:32:00

    Yes, he appears to be a very angry, bitter, delusional man.

    Wow, choc one up for Sjohnson and kicking in that Alinekyite Rule 13.

    Reply

  47. cancangirl
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 19:34:00

    That makes it hard to take anything he says seriously.
    And you really think anyone takes a Commie Big Govt. Commie serious? One day, you will look back and see that the 'delusional, biter, angry' people were right and you were SO wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  48. cancangirl
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 19:36:00

    It still hasn't dawned that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was written by, liberals.

    NO, the Constitution was written by God fearing CHRISTIAN men that were NOT 'liberal' and many of them died peniless, you lying crock of sh*t!
    LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LIAR!!!!! LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  49. Syrin from Wasilla
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 19:47:00

    Hey, thanks for your comments.
    However, the statement that to look back and see that the 'delusional, biter, angry' people were right and all the rest were SO wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    You are SO wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Just sayin- any group who willingly admit to be 'delusional, bitter, angry' people are NEVER RIGHT!

    Reply

  50. sjohnson
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 21:08:00

    Looks like you've attracted two crude, angry, bitter, and irrational trolls now. Your blog must be a threat to them. Congratulations!!!

    Reply

  51. ken
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 22:00:00

    um,looks like fun,but i think i'll call ''bullshit''

    Reply

  52. ken
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 22:05:00

    very good question,i tend to ask this of every socialist,i'm not sure if they miss their mommys,or life back at the castle,but they do seem hell bent on selling their soul for a little bit of security,,,,now who was it that warned us of people like this.

    Reply

  53. Snowy
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 23:05:00

    Out of respect for Syrin, I will respond to you just this once. Your foul mouthed, irrational, and insulting diatribe does nothing for your argument. And that is all I have to say to you. Ever.

    Reply

  54. ken
    Apr 11, 2010 @ 23:13:00

    oh, don't worry about that cancangirl ,he's said that to me at least a dozen times,but everytime he try's to grasp at the higher ground he just slides a little further backwards.

    Reply

  55. Snowy
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 00:10:00

    Hmm, I notice you're in no hurry to respond to this massive slapdown from an ex-marine and ex-police officer, ken.

    Reply

  56. ken
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 00:13:00

    the socialist coward deleted my reply,must be not as tough as he would like people to think,not to mention a traitor.

    Reply

  57. Snowy
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 00:51:00

    Heh, heh, heh.

    Reply

  58. Syrin from Wasilla
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 09:25:00

    Ken, who deleted your reply? I've been gone at Arctic Man for 5 days. This is why I haven't commented on this thread..
    Cancangirl BTW……Did you pay attention in US History class? I understand the founding fathers were not predominantly Christian. They were mostly theists and deists, men who believed in “God” or “providence” and who had a deep distrust for religion, especially state-endorsed religion. They very rarely if at all spoke the name of JESUS the Christ..

    Reply

  59. ken
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 10:09:00

    the ''tuff'' guy snowy is talking about and gave a link to,who for the most part is just another america hater.

    Reply

  60. sjohnson
    Apr 12, 2010 @ 11:00:00

    Like you??? Your comment speaks volumes about you.

    Reply

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

Syrin From Wasilla’s Stats

%d bloggers like this: