Heather Hastie defends Ayaan Hirsi Ali against the SPLC’s distortions

UPDATE:  Heather adds this:

When I did the post in support of Maajid Nawaz, I also wrote to SPLC. I got a response from them, the contents of which I found pretty appalling.

I’ve done a post which includes my email, their response, and what I think of their response:



The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has disgraced itself by putting out a “blacklist” of supposed anti-Muslim extremists, including on it the “extremists” Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Both of them are Muslim reformers, and I’ve written before about the injustice of including these two on a list along with real bigots. (I now feel that the SPLC has no business issuing any such blacklists.)

Most of the criticisms of that list have defended Maajid Nawaz, a believing Muslim rather than an apostate Muslim like Hirsi Ali. But I call your attention to a good defense of Hirsi Ali in a post on Heather Hastie’s website, “Why Ayann Hirsi Ali Shouldn’t Be on SPLC’s ‘Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists‘”. “Ayann” is misspelled, but that’s clearly a typo because the spelling is correct throughout the post itself. (I’ve called it to Heather’s attention and am sure it’ll be corrected.)

It’s a particularly incisive post, with Heather demolishing every point that the SPLC leveled against Hirsi Ali when damning her as an inciter of hatred against Muslims. I won’t summarize it here, but I urge readers who want to skinny on Hirsi Ali to go read it.

As for the SPLC, I have no use for them. They are nothing to me now, just as Freddo became nothing to Michael Corleone.


  1. Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    It is indeed a thorough and complete demolition. And she has some heavy words for Jon Stewart as well.

  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Just an added bit of info, Sam Harris just recently had Ayaan on his pod cast if you should want some info from her.

    • Posted November 5, 2016 at 3:41 pm | Permalink


    • Heather Hastie
      Posted November 5, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      Since Jerry was kind enough to write about my post, I’ve added some stuff. One of the things I’ve added is a link to the Sam Harris/Ayaan Hirsi Ali podcast. (Yes I do know how to spell it! 🙂 )

  3. Carl
    Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    “…I’ve written before about the injustice of including these two on a list along with real bigots.”

    Is this a slip of the pen, or are there real bigots on the list? I take it as a slip given your parenthetical remarks:

    (I now feel that the SPLC has no business issuing any such blacklists.)

    • Historian
      Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      Yes, there are real bigots on the list. Frank Gaffney is one. See this article from the Washington Post.


      • Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

        I am not so sure Gaffney is as much bigot as he is just plain nuts.

        • Historian
          Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

          Being nuts and being a bigot are not mutually exclusive.

          • Carl
            Posted November 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

            If “nuts” means drawing wild and questionable conclusions, that definitely fits Gafney. The article doesn’t convince me he’s a bigot, though he may be. He starts on common ground with people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris – worries about the Muslim Brotherhood and distaste for certain features of Islam – then gets to a place that leaves you wondering how he got there.

            Use of the words “bigot” and “racist” are so toxic to rational discussion, I feel much greater care should be taken in using them, and it’s probably better not to use them at all. Too much discourse amounts to slapping a label on someone and calling it done.

            • jay
              Posted November 7, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

              Bigot historically meant” extreme irrational hatred”. This is NOT the same as dislike ( justified or not).

              The sliding definition scale has once again distorted the language for political purposes (maybe that is ‘bigotry’ as well)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted November 5, 2016 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      Pamela Geller.

      • Posted November 5, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        Anti-Muslim bigot perhaps, but “extremist”? (Not meaning to say you imply she is.)

      • Carl
        Posted November 5, 2016 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        How do Geller’s views on Islam or toward Muslims, differ from those of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris?

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted November 6, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

          Geller defended the Serbian genocide of Muslims led by Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadži during the Bosnian War. She opposed the Park 51 mosque claiming that it was intended by Muslims as a symbol of their victory over a conquered land. She continually rabble-rouses against “creeping Sharia law” and the “Islamization of America” (as if this is even a thing). She has also deemed all Islam to be ideology of hate and denies that there are any moderate religious Muslims — completely contradicting what actual moderate religious Muslims like Maajid Nawaz say.

          Geller’s anti-Muslim bigotry is of a piece with the other paranoid bigotries of her far-right/objectivist ideology. She promoted the claim that Barack Obama is the illegitimate offspring of Malcolm X. She also urges that the Black majority in South African is engaged in a genocide against whites.

          All of this isn’t to say that Pamela Geller deserves any less protection by the First Amendment. She has the exact same right to speak freely as the Birchers, the Klan, the CPUSA, or any of the rest of us.

          It’s not even to say that Geller belongs on the SPLC list or that such lists are a good idea in the first place. But you asked if anyone on the SPLC list is a “real bigot.” Pamela Geller is.

          • Posted November 6, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

            I agree with your first sentence. Actually, this was the reason for me to stop reading Geller.
            However, her opinion about Park 51 is identical with that of Raif Badawi. She may also be right about South Africa. Numerous sources report the same, and I know about a white South African trying to immigrate to Bulgaria because of safety concerns.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 6, 2016 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

              Raif Dadawi and you are wrong about Park 51. The free exercise of religion is a cornerstone of American liberty. I, too, wish people would stop practicing religion (in general, and Islam, in particular). But restricting religious freedom is an even worse alternative.

              I don’t doubt that, when passions have run high, there have been individuals in South Africa who have had legitimate concerns for their safety (such as, perhaps, the person you know who emigrated to Bulgaria). But there is a world of difference from that to the baseless, bigoted claim that the government of South Africa is itself engaged in genocide against white people.

              • Posted November 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

                I did not mean that he said the mosque should not be allowed, but that he thought (and wrote) that its purpose and effect would be “to spawn new terrorists”.

                I do not find that religious freedom is tantamount to members of one and only one particular religion practicing it in any form and place they like. Why were not e.g. Orthodox Christians allowed to practice their religion there? (I’ve read that after a preexisting Orthodox Church was destroyed on Sept. 11, authorities tried to prevent its rebuilding and the church had to sue.)

                To me, it seems probable that Muslims made the highest bid for the spot, and authorities were happy to grant it so that not to offend any Muslim. However, in the society I wish to live in, rights and freedoms are not proportional to wealth and propensity for violence.

              • Carl
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

                Ken Kukek writes:
                Raif Dadawi and you are wrong about Park 51. The free exercise of religion is a cornerstone of American liberty. I, too, wish people would stop practicing religion (in general, and Islam, in particular). But restricting religious freedom is an even worse alternative.

                I’m not sure which side of “ground zero mosque” question I come down on. But holding the anti opinion certainly doesn’t make someone a bigot.

                The “free exercise of religion” clause should not be read as putting any actions outside the scope of secular law, solely because they arise from a religion. It protects free thought, but doesn’t create a special category of protected actions. Laws against murder (whether of apostates, blasphemers, gays, or disobedient children) are perfectly constitutional. Outlawing a certain kinds of headgear may or may not be constitutional, but it depends on the circumstances, not on religion. Wearing a hijab on the street is protected; wearing a ski-mask in a bank is not.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

                “It protects free thought, but doesn’t create a special category of protected actions.”

                It self-evidently does, Carl. The first amendment singles out religious exercise, not merely religious belief, for special protection (“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion).

                Now, I believe (along with many others, including some judges and justices) that the First Amendment should be interpreted to protect all “matters of conscience,” secular as well as religious. I also believe that this right should not be exempted from the enforcement of facially neutral secular laws.

                But these are matters the courts have struggled with mightily and inconsistently over the years, such that they remain unsettled. (For example, Santeria practitioners are exempt from laws proscribing animal slaughter, and Seventh Day Adventists cannot be denied unemployment benefits for refusing to work on Saturdays, but Indians can be prosecuted for using peyote as a sacrament, and Mormons for polygamous marriage. Go figure.)

              • Carl
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

                Again we disagree. Surprise. I contend your interpretation is not self evident, but incorrect. I say “exercise of religion” is thinking whatever you want, but stops before reaching “do whatever your religion prescribes.” Exercise refers to thought not action. Relying on “Facially Neutral” seems more of a stretch to me. (Aside: How are you able to use italics here?)

                I will agree that it’s a matter of interpretation, and that my side is not self evident either.

                I do think my interpretation, whether pertaining to religion or matters of conscience, is the better way to go. People may think and say whatever they want, but they can’t protect any action they please by throwing it into a particular category. Of course, I already think we have a broad spectrum of rights, not all of them enumerated in the Constitution, but nonetheless protected by it. It is these rights that cover anything someone wants to do in the name of conscience or religion that law may not touch. The rest is fair game.

              • nicky
                Posted November 7, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

                The govt. of South Africa is not involved in these ‘Farm Murders’, we definitely don’t think so, but it was, and still is, dragging its feet about fighting it. Although farmers suffer the highest murder rates of all population groups, it is not a prìority of the South African Police.
                (Note, many of the victims are farm workers, which are generally not ‘white’. Yet, a racist motive is supected)

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

              If you look at the middle paragraph of my last comment, I think you’ll see we are not so far apart in what we want, Carl. But what we want often differs from what the Constitution provides. The Fist Amendment expressly speaks of religion’s “free exercise,” and the Supreme Court has interpreted to exempt some religious practices (though as I noted, not others, even though they sometimes seem indistinguishable) from the application of secular law, not merely religious ideation. (In any event, secular laws must always be “facially neutral”; otherwise, a legislature could prohibit, say, only Catholics from serving wine on Sundays, only Muslims from wearing veils.)

              The so-called “strict interpretationists” — originalists and texualists — have one of their better arguments here (within the limits of their methodology) in claiming that religion is entitled to special treatment, since it alone is set out in the First Amendment’s text (unlike “right of conscience” or similar religiously neutral terminology). That’s not a big problem for “living-constitutionalists” like me, since we think the document’s text should be interpreted in light of evolving standards, including continuing advanced in the Enlightenment thinking that gave this nation its founding principles in the first place.

              I’m uncertain what you’re referring to when you write “we have a broad spectrum of rights, not all of them enumerated in the Constitution.” If you mean, for example, statutory rights and rights arising via custom and case law, that’s undoubtedly correct. But those rights are subject to the whims of the popular will and the political processes. Our constitutional rights are forever — or at least for as long as our Republic endures.

              • Carl
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

                Ken, here’s what I mean by “broad spectrum of rights.” Before the Constitution people had “natural” rights. It would take too long to explain this, but it has nothing to do Catholic Natural Right theory, more like the rights present in the “state of nature” to do anything within ones power. The Constitution was instituted to secure those rights, as far as possible, in a civil society where we have to live together.

                I probably don’t need to explain this to you, but many of founders felt the a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, feeling that such rights were so obvious they didn’t need spelling out. The main purpose of the Constitution was to limit government by strictly enumerating its power so that the rights of the people would be safe. We can be glad this view didn’t prevail, and a bill of rights was proposed.

                There were immediate objections to a bill of rights. It would be taken as license to disparage rights that were not enumerated, and since such an enumeration is potentially infinite, impossible to achieve. The solution in the actual Bill of Rights lies in the ninth and tenth amendments, where a “broad spectrum of rights” are guaranteed:

                9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                Then the 14th amendment rounds it out nicely, prohibiting States from usurping the rights of the people as individuals.

                We were given a Constitution that promises maximal freedom. Along with the enumerated rights, it makes sodomy laws, interracial marriage bans, abortion and contraceptive bans illegal while making same sex marriage legal. We don’t need a “living document” we only need to honor the one we have. The founders gave us an arduous amendment process precisely to secure these freedoms.

              • Carl
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

                I think we may be in pretty close agreement on what we want. I fall pretty much in line with the radical philosophers that the founders followed:

                From the radical position that Locke and Spinoza share, it follows that religion is not a fundamental category of human experience for legal or political purposes in either its public or its private aspects. Here we can glimpse the point where the moderate advocates of “religious toleration” and the radical proponents of “religious right” diverge irreconcilably. When advocates of toleration demand state protection for religion, whether in public practices or in acts of conscience, they generally take for granted that the activities and thoughts they associate with religion belong to a distinct category of human activity and deserve protection by virtue of their inclusion in that special category. The radicals, on the other hand, collapse the public aspect of religious activity into public activity in general, and consequently allow no special privileges or exemptions for it from the power of the sovereign. The radicals then collapse the private aspect of religion into thought in general, and recognize an unalienable right associated with it on the basis of the freedom and natural equality of human minds. Thus they redefine and contain religion at the very moment that they guarantee its freedom.

                The separation of church and state that emerges from the early modern revolutions in philosophy and politics does not in fact imply that the modern secular state is or ought to be neutral with respect to religion in every sense of that term. It does not and ought not tolerate any form of religion that attempts to hold the power of the sovereign answerable to its private religious belief. It also does not and ought not tolerate any attempt to shield the doctrines and practices of any religion from critical scrutiny.

                Stewart, Matthew. Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (p. 416). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

                Sound good?

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

              FYI, you can add italics by including an “i” between the “” symbols preceding the word or phrase and a “/i” between those symbols after. (To add bold text, use a “b” instead of “i”.)

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

                The symbols are . (Hope that displays; HTML is hard.)

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

                Sheesh, it’s the two sideways caret symbols, found above the comma and period on a standard keyboard.

              • Carl
                Posted November 6, 2016 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

                Thanks Ken
                italics bold

          • Carl
            Posted November 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

            I steered the conversation a bit off course by asking who on the list were actually bigots. I think the main objection to the SPLC list should be the stated reasons for putting people on that list. For example, even in the case of Pamela Geller:

            SPLC quotes Geller saying:
            “Islam … is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth.”

            The use of “most” is not literally true, but of ideologies we should spend time worrying about, Islam is at the top, and definitely is truly worrying. Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have made similar statements.

            SPLC writes:
            In 2015 in Garland, Texas, Geller sponsored a “Draw the Prophet” cartoon contest

            I hope most people interpret this as saying (to Muslims and the illiberal left) like, “Our freedom of speech trumps your religion, which obligates us in no way. We will not be intimidated by threats or actual violence (though in fact many of the spineless have been).” Maajid Nawaz has performed this particular act of blasphemy himself.

            SPLC quotes Geller saying:
            Arabic “is the language of Islam and it is a spearhead of an ideological project that is deeply opposed to the United States of America.”

            Again true and in agreement with the sentiments of Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

            Ken, even parts of your Geller indictment stray in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with worrying about “creeping Sharia law” and the “Islamization of America” – I’ll grant the manner of rabble rousing conceivably could be. The worry is greater in Europe where the lack of assimilation is causing real problems now. We should learn from them.

            The American founders gave us tools to put dangerous Christian ideology in its place, and the use of the tools has been wildly successful. Those tools are non-denominational. Don’t let tactics like those used by the SPLC take the edge off them.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 6, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

              The demagoguery of quasi-legitimate issues is part of what bigots do. (See, e.g., Donald Trump on illegal immigration.) The dangers of Sharia law, and of Islamization, in the United States have been wildly and recklessly overstated by Geller and others of her ilk. They use these unfounded fears to drive ludicrous causes, like the removal of all mention of Islam from history text books. Her doltish “draw the prophet” contest, while fully protected from governmental interference by the First Amendment, furthered no interest worth promoting; it was an exercise in self-promotion, tout court — which is an apt description of her entire “career,” such as it is.

              I will defend unto the near-death experience Pamela Geller’s right to spout her deleterious drivel, but I detest what she has had to say.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted November 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

            Good on Geller for ruffling a few nimrod feathers.

            You make it sound like she endorsed the massacre of Muslims by Serbian saying she ‘defended’ it, which is untrue.

            “Are the Serbs innocent? Of course not and their massacre of Bosnian Muslims committed out of revenge is equally as deplorable as the massacres committed by Oric’s jihadists. But war is a very dirty business. In a war where all sides – Serbs, Croats and Muslims – committed atrocities, apportioning all the blame on one side is part of the crime.”

            She raised questions as to why prior massacres by Muslims against Serbs and other vile behavior by the Muslims leading up the that response was ignored by the media.
            And other actions by the UN and Clinton.
            Needed explaining.

            But of course, to some, a dissenting opinion, or asking questions means ‘bigot’.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 6, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

              Pamela Geller is a nimrod. She isn’t a serious thinker, by any reasonable definition; she’s a shameless self-promoter, pandering to the basest instincts of people with legitimate concerns about Islam. If you doubt it, spend some time swimming around the cesspool of her “Atlas Shrugged” blog — if you can stand it. (She nonetheless has every right to be heard, just as I have every right to call her bigotry what it is; that’s how the free-marketplace of ideas functions.)

              “The other guy did it, too” isn’t a defense to genocide or any other crime against humanity — not here, not at the Hague (as Karadži discovered, and as Milošević surely would’ve had he lived to see a verdict at his trial), not anywhere where decent humankind can be found.

              Thank goodness there are statesmen in the world who understand this, and who enact, abide by, and enforce international law. Thank goodness as well that there are statesmen-lawyers who are willing to incur opprobrium in defending war criminals to ensure they receive a fair trial. I wouldn’t trade a one of either for all the Pam Gellers the idiot-extreme blogosphere has to offer.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted November 6, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

            The quote I gave above was from Gellars website but was actually said by another journalist, Christopher J. Green.

  4. Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    For all I know, there may be real bigots on the SPLC list, but the inclusion of Ali and Nawaz has destroyed SPLC’s credibility for me so the content of its list no longer matters.

    • Carl
      Posted November 5, 2016 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

      Ah, but it is the content of the list that does really matter. Not so much the names, but the opinions the SPLC wants to make illegitimate. It’s fortunate that our two heroes were included, since it prevented the whole foul enterprise from passing unnoticed by many of us.

  5. Posted November 5, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink


  6. Wunold
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    Hello Professor Ceiling Cat,

    the link in your update doesn’t link to the URL it shows, but to the web mail interface of the University of Chicago.

  7. chris moffatt
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    While there are some fairly unpleasant people listed there by SPLC, many times one person’s bigot is another person’s activist. The people listed are in many cases pointing out truths about islam that SPLC would obviously not accept. But that’s why the first amendment exists – precisely so people can say unpopular things. It certainly isn’t in the remit of groups like SPLC to decide whose speech isn’t acceptable and then demonise the speakers by putting them on lists. We’ve seen before in our history the dangers of lists. Indeed Mr Erdogan is showing us right now where this list-making leads.

  8. Hal
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    I have been a contributing member of SPLC for more than 20 years, and I have admired their essential work, especially that involving defense of Blacks and other minorities against the forces of oppression and in raising awareness of the rising radical violent right. I’ll probably continue supporting their work despite their egregious error in this case and their insistence on digging themselves into a deeper hole by their boilerplate response to objections raised by so many people. But the damage they have done to their own reputation in this case is second only to the damage they attempted to do to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz. That is a tragedy. SPLC has done important work. I hope they retract their error and get on with that work.

    • nicky
      Posted November 6, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      Apparently the SPLC is mainly a money making scam (c.f. responses to Heather’s post).
      They may have done some good work, but it is disproportionally insignificant to the fortune they have accumulated.
      Hal, I think you should donate to better organisations. Organisations with a good ‘work to admin’ ratio. (And apparently the SPLC would not be included in those)

      • Hal
        Posted November 6, 2016 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

        As a matter of fact, I hadn’t checked their status with Charity Navigator or other similar evaluation organizations. Now I see their program expense is a low 64.6%, a value far below what I consider a good figure. I think I’ll take your advice.

  9. Hempenstein
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Organizations are equally as capable as people of rising to their own level of incompetence.

  10. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    I saw some twitter exchange on Sam Harris website between Sarah Haider and someone purportedly from the SPLC.

    It was terrible. The person was arrogant, dismissive and even childish.

    One example was, Sarah said “if those two are on the list I should be on it too”

    The response was “We have no problems adding you to the list. If you ever become prominent then you’ll be added.

  11. Mobius
    Posted November 6, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    The other day, on a different forum, I commented on the SPLC naming Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an extremist, saying that “perhaps she is a bit extreme but doesn’t deserve, IMHO, to be on the list.”

    A commenter posted back (paraphrasing), “A bit extreme? She calls for using the military to destroy all Islam.”

    Well, I have never heard of her saying anything anywhere close to that, nor can I find a source saying she did. I doubt the veracity of this claim, but if anyone can show me it is true I would appreciate it. Any ideas where this came from?

    • Wunold
      Posted November 7, 2016 at 12:34 am | Permalink

      In such cases, I ask them for their sources and dismiss their claims openly if they don’t deliver.

    • eric
      Posted November 7, 2016 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      She does use war metaphors and speaks about defeating ideological concepts currently in Islam. For example, here is a quote from a
      2015 interview she gave with the NY Post
      (really just a book promo):

      “I think with the Arab world, the West thinks we’re fighting an inferior enemy,” Ali says. “Look at the language we use: It’s jihad, it’s insurgency, it’s asymmetric.” Ali thinks the West, and the US especially, should look to the lessons of the Cold War and recognize we are waging a battle of ideas — that in 17 Muslim majority nations, the state religion is Islam.

      “We did not say the Soviet system was morally equivalent to ours; nor did we proclaim that Soviet communism was an ideology of peace,” Ali writes. “In much the same way, we need to recognize that this is an ideological conflict that will not be won until the concept of jihad itself has been decommissioned.”

      I’d point out, however, than Heather nailed it exactly when she said that fighting against ideas is quite different from fighting against people. Hirsi clearly does want to fight against – and eliminate – several ideas that are currently. But she isn’t calling for non-violent Muslim people to be attacked or eliminated.

      • eric
        Posted November 7, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

        “…currently part of mainstream Islamic thought.”

        Sorry, don’t know how that got dropped.

%d bloggers like this: