Francis Collins, Obama's Pick For NIH Chief

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Francis Collins, Obama's Pick For NIH Chief stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LAURAN NEERGAARD | 07/ 8/09 08:24 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE -- In this Oct. 26, 2005 file photo, Francis Collins holds a copy of "Nature" as he speaks during a news conference announcing a new way to search through human DNA for specific genes in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac, File)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is choosing an influential scientist who helped unravel the human genetic code _ and is known for finding common ground between belief in God and science _ to head the National Institutes of Health.

Obama called Dr. Francis Collins "one of the top scientists in the world" in announcing his nomination Wednesday.

"His groundbreaking work has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease," Obama said.

The NIH is the nation's premiere medical research agency, directing $29.5 billion to spur innovative science that leads to better health. Collins, an early gene-hunter, would come to the job not just with the scientific credentials, but with a reputation for translating the complexities of DNA into language the everyday American can understand.

The folksy Collins led the Human Genome Project that, along with a competing private company, mapped the genetic code _ or, as he famously called it, "the book of human life."

"It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God," he said at a 2000 White House ceremony marking release of the genome's first draft.

For that work, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award. But he may be more widely known for his 2007 best-selling book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

And this spring Collins, 59, was named one of GQ Magazine's "Rock Stars of Science," posing in cool shades as part of a publicity campaign to bring celebrity to science.

Story continues below

John Porter, a former Republican congressman from Illinois who now chairs the health advocacy group Research!America called Collins "a perfect choice."

"He knows the science and he is an outstanding leader," Porter said.

Collins promises to make the NIH's important work more understandable not only for patients but for lawmakers who hold the agency's purse strings, said American Heart Association President Dr. Clyde Yancey.

"The real advantage he brings is the ability to translate deep and complex science to the lay population ... in a meaningful way that allows it to be tangible and actionable," he said.

Collins has discovered numerous genes important for diseases, including the one that leads to cystic fibrosis.

But the true power of genetics, he told a meeting of scientists in Washington last month, has yet to be realized as researchers eventually learn enough to provide customized predictions of which diseases really threaten an individual, and personalized care to respond.

Today, "you can get fancy DNA tests for hundreds of dollars," Collins told The Endocrine Society meeting _ but your better bet for now may be a simple family tree of health, checking what ailments Mom, Dad and Grandpa had to predict your own future. "That's a free genetic test of great power."

NIH is familiar turf: Collins spent 15 years as the NIH's chief of genome research, before stepping down last year to, among other things, work with Obama's campaign. He also helped found the BioLogos Foundation, a Web site formed by a group of scientists who say they want to bridge gaps between science and religion.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is choosing an influential scientist who helped unravel the human genetic code _ and is known for finding common ground between belief in God and science _ to...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is choosing an influential scientist who helped unravel the human genetic code _ and is known for finding common ground between belief in God and science _ to...
Loading...
 
Report Corrections
 
Comments
829
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
photo

He headed The Human Genome Project, one of the most significant recent achievements of modern biology! Even if he was a Mooney or worshiped the Moon he is one of the best picks Obama could have made. He knows the science and has proven he can also direct research with outstanding results.

It is very rare to find and outstanding scientist who is also an excellent leader. I have a lot of experience with this. This pick is outstanding.

If he was a Muslim or Hindu I doubt there would be this much anger from most of you.

Not all Christians are fundies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Dogma is dogma. Imaginary invisible voices in your head are just that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

What are your credentials Tazru? Where did you get your PhD? How many genomes have you mapped?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 PM on 07/08/2009
- PlayTOE I'm a Fan of PlayTOE 30 fans permalink
photo

Dr. Francis Collins was a scientist.
Then he discovered god and hasn't made a scientifically useful discovery since.

Nature reveals her secrets when one looks carefully at nature.
Belief in a God only makes people stupid. There is no god.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 07/08/2009

Dr. Francis Collins hasn't worked at the bench in many years. He is now an administrator. Happens to a lot of people and has nothing to do with his beliefs.

Nature will tell you her secrets when you know how to ask, which he clearly does. That technical knowledge is not something related to any other trait a person has. I know plenty of people who simply happen to know how to do science well in addition to being religious. No correlation, whatsoever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Maybe they can do the Tech, but to think Science? Whenever any believer i encountered gets anywhere near questioning dogma they "blue screen". I don't think that is good. The temptation is too great to cook data, the motives too strong.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

"Belief in a God only makes people stupid."

That is an objectively false statement, belied the existence of the many intelligent people who are also religious.

It's a bi g o ted statement too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 07/08/2009

Francis Collins. This is an outrage. I personally met Collins this year when he gave a speech in Louisiana about how science for him was more about faith and feelings than data. I was appalled and I stood up in the crowd of several hundred, walked to the microphone and asked him what evidence he had for his radical anti-science Christian beliefs. And he sidestepped the question, could not answer it, because he is not data driven. He doesn't need proof, because he has hunches. This will bring no good to the hard working meticulous and largely unappreciated great minds that work every day in laboratories at institutions across the nation. This is proof that Obama is a closet Republican or far less intelligent than I had previously given him credit for. I cannot think of a worse choice for this position. We might be better off nominating Sarah Palin for the NIH.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 07/08/2009
- lj9283 I'm a Fan of lj9283 67 fans permalink
photo

Is there a link to the text of that speech?

Or a link to other of his lectures?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 07/08/2009

I would suggest you find me one paper co-authored by Collins which should have been rejected because it is based on "hunches" and not on data. The human genome project was certainly all about data and little else. As for the way scientists arrive at conclusions, there are indeed a lot of hunches involved. Data never tells you the solution, it only tells you where to look and then it validates your hunch. Maybe that is what he meant? If not, it would be nice for you to give us a transcript of your question, his answer and the context... it might be a little bit more believable than your personal dislike of the man (which I completely share, by the way).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 07/08/2009

I am glad to share this. Sure thing. Here's the transcript of the 2009 talk by Collins. http://veritas.org/media/talks/669. It is not a personal dislike. The issue here is that Collins allows his Christianity to guide his scientific curiosity. If you think data doesn't drive science, you are obviously not involved in genomics, proteomics or any of the large scale data driven science that is on the cutting edge. Collins' point is that there is no evidence for God, that only faith can speak to God. As a scientist, I object to someone who is unconcerned with having evidence for his opinions, using his fame as a bully pulpit, and who accepts funding from seriously biased opponents of science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 07/08/2009
- artgurrl I'm a Fan of artgurrl 27 fans permalink

I would like to know why it is the responsibility for government to reconcile science and religion? Why does Obama feel he needs to appease the fundies in this country? Since when is it the responsibility of science to reconcile itself with God? This excuse for appointing this man is lame and completely ridiculous as far as making decisions goes. Faith doesn't belong in government, in education nor does it belong in science. It belongs in a person's life only if he or she chooses to have a faith and that is the only place it belongs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Yes, let us please keep faith out of Science. The theist Religions have big problems with Science and the scientific method. On the other hand I have found that non-theist Religions are less dogmatic and more compatible. In fact some even use the scientific method in their practice, I have no idea how far that goes back, but I think I need to ask.

Not all Religion requires faith, some only require work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 07/08/2009

Theist religions like modern Catholicism have no problem with science whatsoever. It's fundamentalist religions that have a problem. Sadly, we have plenty of those.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

Of the world's 2.1 billion Christians, 1.8 billion belong to church bodies that either are indifferent to or openly embrace evolution and all other facets of modern science.

One of my priests is also an evolutionary biologist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 07/08/2009

"Why does Obama feel he needs to appease the fundies in this country?"

Because you can't get elected without that in this country. It's a simple reality of US politics. You can hate it as much as you want but it's better to have control by a moderate Christian than by a peanut_job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

Who says it "is the responsibility for government to reconcile science and religion?"

Who says it's "the responsibility of science to reconcile itself with God?"

No one is saying that. If this guy and his group want to work on that deep philosophical question, who are you to say he shouldn't, as long as it doesn't impact his job performance?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Oh good, more faith-based Science.

I really thought that was the problem. We need to have separation of church and state, put Science in a separate category.

Will we have a non-theist President before i die? At least a non-christian one would be a good start. Monopolies are never good.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 07/08/2009

"Will we have a non-theist President before i die?"

You had plenty of those. What you didn't have was a president who openly admitted to care sh.... about the tenets of the religion they claimed to belong to.

Mr. Bush was certainly not a man one can call a Christian without blushing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 07/08/2009
- zola77 I'm a Fan of zola77 29 fans permalink
photo

He has faith, but he is not a creationist - he is simply a scientist with faith, of which there are many.
He is an evolutionary scientist, accepts the big bang and all the fundamentals of science. He is not a fundie.

Dont confuse fundies bible literalists with scientists who have spiritual ideas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Big Bang is no longer the accepted explanation. Check Dr. Fred AdamsÅ› books on Astrophysics and Cosmology.

Whenever I engage a believer in any area that might conflict with the dogma I see their face "blue screen". This is a bad pick.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

Can you show me an example of where his faith intruded on his science? What is an example of this faith-based science you say he's engaging in?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

They can't. They aren't familiar enough with his work to make an argument. They just see "christian" and go ballistic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 07/08/2009

I think Collins is a good pick. He helped put together a team of public and governmental agencies that pooled resources to do a "space program of biology" - the decoding of the human genome.

Ironically, for all those out there who think that Collins is a Creationist of ANY sort, I'd point out that one of the key aspects of that programme was to use the already established "base genomes" [and genes] of other organisms to compare with human sequences, find homology (which only makes sense if they share common ancestry), and create a "scaffolding" to determine the code of the base units that showed differences.

He basically beat a huge corporation intent on patenting much of the genome sequence data that would poach the public results as they were published.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

I THOUGHT my DNA felt like it was coming unraveled!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 07/08/2009

Obama taps him? Gross.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 07/08/2009
- FebM I'm a Fan of FebM 45 fans permalink

Sounds like a brilliant pick

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 07/08/2009

Scientists who have imaginary friends and believe in magic should not be heading up NIH.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=549

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 07/08/2009
- ipv4 I'm a Fan of ipv4 15 fans permalink

My sentiments exactly. This is a piss poor pick IMO.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 07/08/2009
- DennisMM I'm a Fan of DennisMM 13 fans permalink
photo

I'm really not sure how one reconciles the two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 07/08/2009

According to Collins you have to stumble upon a frozen waterfall one day and just really think about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Exactly the wrong pick.

Non-theist Religions and Science, no problem.

Theist Religions and Science, BIG Problems!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

OK, you map the human genome and we'll make you NIH head.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

Did he do a bad job running the Human Genome Project?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 07/08/2009
- ipv4 I'm a Fan of ipv4 15 fans permalink

Are you fking kidding me ?? For all his past work the man is still a nut case. The man fell to his knees in the woods and professed his faith in GOD after seeing a frozen waterfall.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 07/08/2009
- Uosdwis I'm a Fan of Uosdwis 4 fans permalink

Can we stop saying "taps" in the sense of "choosing" or "nominating?" I mean, we get on the tea-baggers for not realizing what the other meaning is. It's only fair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

Taps has been in use forever. "Tea bag parties", at least in the sense the right uses, were developed long after the original meaning.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

It seems that every word in this language had at one time, or will have in the future, a se x ual connotation.

I don't have time to keep up with the latest s e x slang the kids just came up with. There are too many other interesting issues.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 PM on 07/08/2009
- stylenease I'm a Fan of stylenease 18 fans permalink
photo

Another screw up from Obie. Paying lips service to these nutbag creationists whoes one true aim is to circumvent science and establish some bogus links to christianity. This guy is not a real scientiest if he seeks to reconcile two paths of belief that are not reconcilable. I think the hot line to Saddleback Church is getting too much use there Obama. Remember, we have a firm separation of church and state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

Francis Collins believes in evolution. He has always believed in evolution. His religious beliefs in no way impact his scientific reasoning.

I'm a liberal democrat, an NIH fellow and a devout Christian. I am not alone. There is a world of difference between Warren and people like Francis Collins and myself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 07/08/2009
- ipv4 I'm a Fan of ipv4 15 fans permalink

Not really. You believe in something that you have no proof exsist. Think about this for a second. What kind of scientist are you???

If I tell you their is a GOD called thor that I worship and believe is the one true God, do you take my word at face value??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 07/08/2009
- zola77 I'm a Fan of zola77 29 fans permalink
photo

Thats unfair. most of the fathers (and mothers) of modern science were religious/had a beief in God. Would you reject their contribution to science on that basis.

Something like half of US scientists believe in god/a higher power. Would you reject all of their contributions to science?

Creationists are those who believe that the world was created in 7 days and humans are not animals, but divinely created - they believe in the bible and literal truth. Unless he does this, he is not a creationist. Dont get confused between fundie creationists and scientists who are 'believers' of some persuasion...of which there are many.

Besides, what are your credentials for deciding who is and isnt a scientist?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 PM on 07/08/2009
- ipv4 I'm a Fan of ipv4 15 fans permalink

Please post a source for half of scientist s believe in a god??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

That was long ago, not being a believer was almost always fatal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 07/08/2009
- edsel I'm a Fan of edsel 4 fans permalink

That sure is an appropriate photo for you stylanease

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 07/08/2009

Collins is hardly a creationist by any standard. He merely believes in a personal God, something many scientists do....there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to lie "in the name of God" that observations of facts of nature are inconsistent with God's word based on a particularly narrow minded interpretation of scripture. To the best of my knowledge the man does not do that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

From Collins' book:

"And if that were so, what kind of God would this be? Would this be a deist God, who invented physics and mathematics and started the universe in motion about 14 billion years ago, then wandered off to deal with other, more important matters, as Einstein thought? No, this God, if I was perceiving him at all, must be a theist God, who desires some kind of relationship with those special creatures called human beings, and has therefore instilled this special glimpse of Himself into each one of us. This might be the God of Abraham, but it was certainly not the God of EinsteinÂ…. Judging by the incredibly high standards of the Moral Law Â… this was a God who was holy and righteous. He would have to be the embodiment of goodnessÂ…. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief."

Collins believes that human beings are "special." That is creationism, pure and simple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 PM on 07/08/2009
- The Ghost I'm a Fan of The Ghost 47 fans permalink
photo

Or maybe he thinks we all took the short bus to school.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

I'm *Special*. Where's my pony?

Humans have ego problems. I try not to be speciesist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 07/08/2009
- zola77 I'm a Fan of zola77 29 fans permalink
photo

creationism is the belief that the world was created in 7 days and that humans are not animals - part of the ape family, but were divinely created by God. And taking the bible as the authoritative scientific.

Unless he has expressed those beliefs as a science, your assertion is not valid.

There are plenty of atheist scientists who also believe that human life is unique, or 'special' - they just dont put it in a spiritual framework.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

Define "creationism." He believes in the big bang, modern cosmology, evolutionary biology, but adds belief in a guiding force and first cause. It is unfair to say that is equivalent to preaching the earth is 6000 years old.

Are humans not special? We have written language, opposable thumbs, and large brains. You could argue that written language is our only "unique" trait, but the combination does give us a unique place in nature. Is it such a leap to a religious mind to think that gives us a special place and special responsibilities? I'm not saying we do, but believing we are "special" isn't baseless. Dolphin expansion, colonization, and technology aren't changing the earth and impacting the environment.

If he genuinely believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that belief did not impact his research who cares? Most metaphysics are, by definition, scientific adiaphora.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 07/08/2009
- Tazru I'm a Fan of Tazru 63 fans permalink
photo

Big Bang is dead, at least get up to speed with your talking points.

Look into Astrophysics and Cosmology in the last 3 years. Fred Adams has a couple of books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Adams

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 07/08/2009

Human beings are special. He is absolutely right about that. Where he goes wrong is that God has "instilled a special glimpse... in ALL of us". God has done no such thing and Dr. Collins has indeed a typical Christian notion that on some level everybody must be just like him. That, of course, is not creationism, just plain old Christian hubris.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 07/08/2009

No it's not. There were plenty of evolutionary theories bandied about for decades that had humans as some sort of "pinnic le of adaptation", too. Human "distinctiveness" is not an exclusive feature of creationism. Denying the common origins (ancestry) of organisms is what is the base concept of Creationism.

As well, One could imagine a creationism that posited separate and distinct origins to species without a deity involved. Lamarck suggested this (although incorporating in transformation to explain the progressive fossil record). Or one could, like Einstein's prime deistic mover, have that creator "depart from the scene"...leaving humans to struggle with survival once initiated. Humans would thus be just one of millions of separate creations.

You've left out Collins ultimate premise, so it's hard to know why he isn't a theist a la Einstein, but I'd suggest that all of his argument lies in the realm of untestability, pro or con.

Collin's wrote his book to show why his science doesn't disrupt his Faith, so he's starting from very different bases than Einstein, who really was a non-practicing Jew.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 07/08/2009

"He also helped found the BioLogos Foundation, a Web site formed by a group of scientists who say they want to bridge gaps between science and religion."

The gap is UNBRIDGEABLE - no scientist can do good science while at the same time imagining there pixies or some such invisibly interfering with reality. For crying out loud, if Deism was enough religion for Ben Franklin, why do we have to accept a religious apologist like Collins. 95% of Biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists - none of them were available?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 PM on 07/08/2009
- Kalarchis I'm a Fan of Kalarchis 4 fans permalink
photo

It's quite bridgeable. One can believe in God and believe in science. If someone believes that God created the universe, does that stop him from trying to figure out how gravity works?

Way to be narrow-minded.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 07/08/2009
- ipv4 I'm a Fan of ipv4 15 fans permalink

No, narrow minded is belonging to a profession where evidence and testing is of the upmost importance but some how in jhis personal life this part of the brain shuts down.

Belief in god (religion) is not hing more then a mental crutch people use to get by in life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 07/08/2009

Actually... we do not believe in science. We KNOW science. That's a very different approach indeed. Science is an instrument like a hammer. You don't believe in a hammer... you simply learn how to use it to drive nails into the wall or make a horseshoe. You can't do that with your faith. At best your faith can make you get up in the morning and move a mountain but you still need a good shovel and a big bucket for that. Science is simply the most advanced shovel and bucket we have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 07/08/2009
- apduncan1 I'm a Fan of apduncan1 42 fans permalink
photo

I tell you what: Abraham figured out the best business model in history. Why make sacrifices to so many gods when I can claim that there is only one and keep all the money to myself ...

Religion is the best business there is; ask the pope.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 07/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

"no scientist can do good science while at the same time imagining there pixies or some such invisibly interfering with reality"

By all accounts, even from his detractors, Collins has, in fact, done good science.

So your statement is false.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 07/08/2009
photo

Yeah!!! Affymetrix: the GeneChip + Forwarding thinking rational drug/gene therapies. This man is better than Anthony Fauci; enough of him, IMHO

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 PM on 07/08/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect