AMPONTAN

Japan from the inside out

Takeshima – Shimane Prefecture

Shimane Prefecture, which technically has jurisdiction over the Takeshima islets in Japan, has published a pamphlet explaining why it thinks they are Japanese territory. Rather than being a cut-and-paste job by some local government employees, the pamphlet was written with the input of scholars from around the country and specialists with the national government. I translated the English version.

You can read it in .pdf form at this site.

24 Responses to “Takeshima – Shimane Prefecture”

  1. steve said

    Here is an analysis of Japan’s unrealistic demands for Takeshima (Dokdo)

    Click this link.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane-case.html

    Japan’s claim for Takeshima is an outdated colonial~expansionist era relic…

  2. bender said

    so is you

  3. Aki said

    The arguments in the site (www.dokdo-takeshima.com) have already been refuted in other sites. Keywords are “toadface dokdo takeshima”.

    For someone really want to study the issue in detail:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/

  4. steve said

    Refuted?

    Hardly.

  5. Peace said

    The Liancourt Rocks were at best terra nullius before Japan incorporated it in 1905. There’s no credible evidence on the side of the Koreans that they even knew of the rocks before then. It doesn’t matter whether Japan claimed the island out of imperial ambitions, with the desire to take a cr*p there or whatever. Your insistence on the immorality of motive takes you nowhere.

    Accusing modern Japan of having imperial ambitions is just ridiculous. Wake up to the 21st century, dude.

  6. steve said

    Peace, it’s not an issue of morality but rather legality.

    International law (ie Max Huber’s precedents) clearly states newly acquired territories be a part of a natural peaceful process. Military annexations during the largest war to the day (Russo~Japanese War) do not fall into this category. This one point shows flaws in Japan’s incorporation of 1905.

    You are wrong on another point. There is credible evidence the Koreans knew of Liancourt Rocks before Japan incorporated them. They are from the Japanese themselves.

    The first source is the Japanese Black Dragon Fishing manuals. The 1901 editions clearly states “Koreans and Japanese fishermen call these rocks Yangkodo” This information was compiled from the fishing season prior. Thus, we know Koreans were cognizant of Liancourt at least five years before the annexation of the island.

    See this doc.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1901-black-dragon-10.jpg

    On this page.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html

    Another source (not surprisingly) is from the logbooks of the Japanese warship Niitaka in 1904 again before the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks. It states “Koreans call this island Dokdo and Japanese fishermen call them Yangkodo..”

    See this doc.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/niitakadoc2.jpg

    In 1905 Japan claimed Liancourt Rocks under the legal doctrine of “occupation” In reality those Japanese who fished on Liancourt Rocks did so from Korea’s Ulleungdo Island NOT from Japan itself. Japanese were forbidden to live on Korean land at this point, especially Ulleungdo. There really was no “occupation” of Liancourt at all on behalf of Japan.

    Terra nullius? This legal term means little if anything in the modern world. In fact the legal term wasn’t even legally codified until the 1970′s. Even Japan’s MOFA dropped the terra nullius part of their claim to Liancourt Rocks years ago.

    Peace, I don’t accuse Japan of “imperial ambitions” in 2008 nor do I intend to vilify Japan. The fine folks at Shimane Prefecture are laying claim to Takeshima these days and they are using their 1905 “incorporation” as its premise. Thus, its only appropriate historical context (political and military) be included.

    Read about Japan’s political involvement in the annexation process most notably Komura Jutaro.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-expansionism-politics.html

  7. ampontan said

    From Steve Barber:
    (Steve, it’s OK to disagree with me on issues, but not on the organization of the website).
    ———————————
    Ampontan, I read articles of Shimojo’s almost on a weekly basis. He posts a lot on Takeshima that’s why I’m here.

    The issue I’m driving at here is not just Takeshima, it goes beyond that. I’m citing the Takeshima dispute as a prime example of Professor’s Shimojo’s flawed interpretation of the historical background of Japan’s annexation and Korea. Professor Shimojo is writing numerous articles on Takeshima these days and these are quite misleading including some of his data you have interpreted on your Takeshima page.

    Thus, if Professor Shimojo’s stance on Takeshima is shown to be politically motivated and inaccurate why should those outside of Shimane Prefecture believe anything else he says?

    Aceface, I don’t pay much attention to the Korean media and I find it pretty offensive of you to insinuate I buy everything that comes down the pike from the Korean government. There are Japanese who have published articles on the Dokdo Takeshima with enough integrity to tell the historical truth of Japan’s involvement on the islets. It was from these scholars articles I did searches on Japan’s JACAR historical archives to gather data. However, Professor Shimojo on the issue of Takeshima, Professor Shimojo simply parrots the stance of Shimane Prefecture to the letter. I’ve never seen him deviate from Japan’s MOFA even once.

    However, I agree that the Koreans are flawed on some points regarding Dokdo. This means we have to take a new approach to solving the Dokdo Takeshima issue. Japan has to stop treating Korea as a colony by citing their 1905 annexation as a basis in 1905.

    Aceface, if there is no Japanese lobby group for Takeshima, then who keeps printing maps showing the islands as part of Japan or Oki Prefecture? Is this what Japan calls diplomacy?

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-tricks.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-tricks2.jpg

  8. ampontan said

    Professor Shimojo simply parrots the stance of Shimane Prefecture to the letter.

    Who do you think was instrumental in formulating the stance of Shimane Prefecture (as it is expressed today) to begin with?

  9. Aceface said

    “I find it pretty offensive of you to insinuate I buy everything that comes down the pike from the Korean government. ”

    Sorry,if I ever offend you in any ways.But I’ve never said such things.
    Anyway,all I know about you is you are an American teaching in highschool fighting fore a foreign cause and Prof Shimojo,a Japanese teaching in unversity,making commentary on Japanese sovereingty.

    “Japan has to stop treating Korea as a colony by citing their 1905 annexation as a basis in 1905.”

    Sorry to nitpick,but the annexation was in 1910,not 1905.And colonial overlords don’t make apology to their subjects.

    “if there is no Japanese lobby group for Takeshima, then who keeps printing maps showing the islands as part of Japan or Oki Prefecture? Is this what Japan calls diplomacy?”

    No.It’s called “geography”.
    I don’t know about the first one you linked,but the second one seems a map from Yahoo! Japan.
    So maybe the responsible for having that maps on the web goes to Son Masayoshi,the CEO?
    I have no inside info nor able to read his mind,but somehow I doubt Son being an anti-Korea activist…..

  10. Aceface, I’m not American and please don’t pretend to know who I am.

    Japanese aggression in Northeast Asia started well before 1910. Japanese troops landed on Korean soil in early 1904 and threatened Korea into signing the Japan Korea Protocol on February 26, 1904. This “allowed” Japan to occupy Korea.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japan-korea-treaty5.jpg

    By August of 1904 Korea was stripped of her ability to independently conduct foreign affairs as shown by this document. In short, by the time the Japanese annexed Dokdo, Japan controlled

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japan-korea-treaty7.jpg

    Professor Shimojo continually tells us to examine the historical circumstances of the Dokdo problem yet when we look closely at what happened Japan’s reasons for annexing Dokdo Takeshima were military and inseparable from Korea’s colonization process. Japan’s Imperial Navy annexed Dokdo while Japan fought for exclusive rights to colonize Korea. Aceface.

    Please read the logbooks of the Japanese warship Tsushima

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

    Aceface, the map of Takeshima below was drawn by the Japanese government after the island was surveyed last year. It shows the island as part of Oki which it is not. It’s one thing to mark ownership as contested and another to mislead the public by saying it is Japanese territory.

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-tricks.jpg

  11. Aceface said

    “Japanese aggression in Northeast Asia started well before 1910. Japanese troops landed on Korean soil in early 1904 and threatened Korea into signing the Japan Korea Protocol on February 26, 1904. This “allowed” Japan to occupy Korea.”

    Yeah,but 1904 still isn’t 1905 and “aggression” isn’t “annexation” either.

    “By August of 1904 Korea was stripped of her ability to independently conduct foreign affairs as shown by this document. In short, by the time the Japanese annexed Dokdo, Japan controlled”

    Your argument is based on the thesis that Takeshima was a Korean territory before 1904,and you know that’s not Japanese argument.

    “Japan’s Imperial Navy annexed Dokdo while Japan fought for exclusive rights to colonize Korea. Aceface.”

    Japan was fighting a war with Russia and the navy built watching post and telegraph station on Takeshima to check in and out of the Russian Pacific fleet in Vladivostok.Since the consequence of the Russo-Japanese war had decided the fate of Korea,your argumet stands in a sense.
    However,building a telegraph post in it’s own territoty is basically an act of selfdefense,I think.

    “It’s one thing to mark ownership as contested and another to mislead the public by saying it is Japanese territory.”

    Since Tokyo had never abandoned it’s position of claiming Takeshima,a Japanese territory,it is only natural to do so,No?

    “I’m not American and please don’t pretend to know who I am.”

    My apology.I’m from a country where everybody automatically think of a foreigner who speak English,an American.

    But then again,that is only one thing I actually think I’m wrong about.

  12. Bender said

    Where is Hyokkori Hyotan Jima going?

  13. Aceface said

    We have another issue ongoing,Bender.And this time with Taiwan in the Senkakus.
    One Taiwanese fishing boat crushed into our coast guard vessel.Taiwanese president demands compensation.

  14. Aceface, I don’t have a “theory”. I’m providing historical context about the circumstances behind why Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905.

    In Feburary of 1905 almost 1,000,000 Russian and Japanese soldiers massed in China for the largest land battle in history to the day, the Baltic Fleet was steaming toward the Straits of Tsushima to aid the Pacific Naval Fleet in Port Arthur where bloody hand to hand combat was being fought.

    Professor Shimojo wants us to believe during the historical backdrop, the Japanese Government felt an urgent need to claim Dokdo to wack seals. This is pretty shameful.

    This is what was happening in Korea, China and the Sea of Japan while Japan annexed Dokdo Takeshima.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-day.html

    The Japanese military surveys of the island for watchtower construction were undertaken before Liancourt Rocks were Japanese territory. Thus we know, Japan’s annexation of Liancourt was a military acquisition. International law states territorial land acquisitions must be part of a “natural and peaceful process…” (ICJ Max Huber)

    Anyway, citing the “international law” the Europeans (and Japan) applied a century ago to carve up Asia, South America, Africa and Australasia won’t work to solve the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. The politics, economics and demographics of this region is worlds apart from 1905. So to define the boundary between Japan and Korea on the circumstances of Japan’s expansionist era is pretty ridiculous.

    Take a look at the East Sea, you will see that Dokdo Island is much closer (within visual distance) of Ulleungdo Island. This is Korean land since the 6th Century. Ulleungdo Island is a large island which is habitable, much like Japan’s Oki Islands. Thus Ulleungdo Island is legally capable of generating an EEZ which Dokdo Island would be easily within range of. A proposal could be to draw an equidistant like between the Oki Islands and Korea’s Ulleungdo which would give Korea much more ocean.

    What Japan wants is unreasonable. Let me explain why.

    Japan’s policy with regard to outlying islands is to declare every rock the size of a bedroom (Okinotoroshimas, Marcus Island) as EEZs. For example they declare 400,000sq kms of EEZ around Marcus Island. If Japan were to claim Dokdo Takeshima they are obligated to maintain this stance or weaken their claims on other islands they dispute over. In other words, if Japan were to acquire Takeshima they would extend their border between Ulleungdo and Takeshima thus extending their boundary much further. This would only give Korea’s Ulleungdo Island about 45kms of ocean to fish and Japan’s Oki Islands about 200kms!

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-coastmap1.jpg

    Of the proposals above, I’d say Korea maintaining possession of Dokdo Takeshima and solidifying the current 12km border the fairest option of all for both countries. From Ulleungdo, Korea currently gets about 100kms of water and from the Oki Islands Japan gets around 150kms. From a coastal baseline measurement the Koreans get about 230kms and the Japanese get about 200kms. The present-day boundary is quite fair.

  15. Correction above, the Battle of Mukden (now Shenyang) was about 500,000 soldiers involved

  16. ampontan said

    Japan’s policy with regard to outlying islands is to declare every rock the size of a bedroom (Okinotoroshimas, Marcus Island) as EEZs.

    At least they’re declaring islands that actually exist. During the SF treaty negotiations, the Koreans claimed an island that was no longer there. It sunk.

    Take a look at the East Sea, you will see that Dokdo Island is much closer (within visual distance) of Ulleungdo Island.

    The East Sea? Whatever do you mean? There’s no body of water with that name in this part of the world.

    http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/still-the-sea-of-japan/

    Within visual distance? Please, no links to that photoshopped picture.

    When Japan and Korea disputed the sovereignty of Ulleong about 300 years ago, however, the Koreans at that time interpreted the same passage to mean that Ulleong was visible from Ulsan on the Korean Peninsula to stake their claim to Ulleong. The same text has been used to claim Korean sovereignty over both Ulleong and Takeshima. This is evidence that the self-contradictory Korean positions present a problem for their interpretation.

    Moreover, the policy used for islands when compiling the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam and the Sejong Sillok Jiriji was to record the distance and direction from the government authority with jurisdiction. Ulleong is far from Ulsan Province, making actual measurements difficult. Therefore, the expression “visible” was used to express the distance from Ulsan to Ulleong. In that event, the Usan visible in the Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam and other sources is a small island near Ulleong.

    In fact, An Yong-bok stated that Usan was northeast of Ulleong. A look at the map reveals that Takeshima is roughly to the southeast of Ulleong. Therefore, the Usan that An Yong-bok saw was Chikusho (now Chikuto, or Jukto in Korean), near Ulleong.

    That from the Mainichi article at the top of the page.

  17. Ken said

    Here also seems to have appeared Korean nationalist who pretend the 3rd party, right?
    Following site is recommended to study the truth about Takeshima.
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=835
    An American prfessor has investigated Korean old documents and is about to publish the book about it.

  18. Aceface said

    “Aceface, I don’t have a “theory”. I’m providing historical context about the circumstances behind why Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905.”

    I said “thesis”,Steve.”theory”is your word.

    “Professor Shimojo wants us to believe during the historical backdrop, the Japanese Government felt an urgent need to claim Dokdo to wack seals. This is pretty shameful.”

    Is it? Setting up a watch post in your territory is one thing.Annexing a country is another.Your argument is pretty much the same as saying “Wyoming voters are responsible for starting Iraq war,since they’ve send Dick Cheney to the capitol hills in 1978″.
    There are facts and indeed some connection between them,but I’d still say there are some leap in the logic.

    And Steve,It’s no seal,It was Japanese Sea Lion (Zalophus japonicus),the fishermen were wacking in Taleshima.

    “Thus we know, Japan’s annexation of Liancourt was a military acquisition. International law states territorial land acquisitions must be part of a “natural and peaceful process…” (ICJ Max Huber)”

    But there is a record that a Japanese businessman had established a fishery house in 1903 to catch Japanese Sea Lions and he have also sent letters of request for permission to interior/foreign/agricultural/ministers of Japan.

    And what do you make of “Syngman Rhee line” was formed by military force in 1952? And Korean coast guards dispatching garrison in 1954?

    Going by your logic,aren’t these land acquisitions,forceful? Afterall some Japanese fishermen were killed in the process.

    “Anyway, citing the “international law” the Europeans (and Japan) applied a century ago to carve up Asia, South America, Africa and Australasia won’t work to solve the Dokdo Takeshima dispute”

    Ever heard of “Ex post facto law”?

    Anyway Japan proposes to take the case to the International court of Justice since 1954…

  19. Bender said

    Aceface:
    Don’t get into his trap…he’ll just repeat his worn-down story again like a broken record. Too bad he doesn’t understand he’s enticing ethno-hatred. Too bad he has no idea of how Japan changed after its defeat in WWII.

    The lessons of WWII were supposed to favor tolerance and cosmopolitanism, not some warped formed of ethnocentric nationalism. I’m pretty confident Japan is doing better. Japan’s neighbors?…oh boy.

  20. Ampontan, is this the best argument you can put forward? Silly remarks about sunken islands, the East Sea, and shamelessly regurgitated cut and paste job from Japan’s MOFA, of Shimane’s website??

    The Korean’s don’t need “photoshopped” photos to prove Dokdo’s visibility from Ulleungdo. This fact was recorded in Korean historical documents and by the 1903 Black Dragon Fishing manual.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/black-dragon-1903-1.jpg

    It reads.
    “…About 30-ri south-east of Ulleungdo, and almost the same distance north-west from Japan’s Oki county, there is an uninhabited island. One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine.

    Aceface, a Japanese person did set up a sealing factory. It was Nakai Yozaburo. Do you know where his “seal factory” was…?

    It was on Korea’s Ulleungdo Island. Nakai Yozaburo was a fisherman from Shimane Prefecture. He was one of around 1000 Japanese illegal squatters who were illegally residing on Korea’s Ulleundo Island. He was part of Japanese civilian invasion of Korean territory.

    This map from 1905 shows the Japanese illegal villages on Korea’s Ulleungdo. The double circles show where these squatters lived. You can also see the “X” where the Japanese Naval watchtowers were installed 望樓

    Nakia Yozaburo did his sealing from his illegal base on Korea’s Ulleungdo Island and would stay on Takeshima for a few days and then return. Takeshima has no fresh water or shelter. The logbooks of the warship Niitaka recorded this.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files.html

    Korea demanded these Japanese leave Ulleungdo for many years and had them forcibly removed in 1883 but the Japanese continued to trespass there. All through the late 19th Century and early 1900s the Japanese were illegally fishing and residing on Ulleungdo. The Japanese were also indiscriminately logging there. Japanese logging on Ulleungdo continued even after the Russians were granted the concession to do so in 1895.

    Here is a great image of the Japanese Police stationed on Korea’s Ulleungdo in 1902. The Koreans demanded the removal of them but to no avail.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-police.jpg

    Aceface, Nakai Yozaburo’s application for Takeshima was guided by a few people.

    The first was Yamaza Enjiro who was known to be an active member of the Black Ocean society. (Genyosha) These guys hard-core right winger expansionist who used spies and organized crime to advance on the Asian mainland. They made the Yakuza look like Girl Scouts.

    The second man who was involved was Keigo Kiyourga. This man was a supporter of the Yamagata Faction. They were also hardcore expansionists who favoured a hard line policy toward annexing Korea (they were very critical of Hirobumi)

    The third man was Komura Jutaro who was the Foreign Minister and probably one of the most instrumental people involved in the annexation of Korea in 1910 along with Katsura. He was also involved in securing most of the treaties that secured Japanese control over Korea such as the Anglo Japan Alliance, Portsmouth, and the Shimonoseki Treaty.

    The last person was Kimotsuki Kenko who was the Director of Japan’s Naval Hydrographic Department. Of course Japan was at war at the time and Kenko was very instrumental in surveying the island for watchtowers and radio telegraph lines.

    Aceface states “ever hear of “ex-post facto law”? I dunno Aceface did you ever hear of “uti possidetis” Don’t even get me started on the legal problems with Japan’s 1905 incorporation. The ICJ? Don’t make me laugh. Japan refuses to go to the ICJ on her territorial disputes, so it’s pretty ballsy of them to cry foul on the Koreans. This is a problem for Japan and Korea to settle.

    Ampontan, Anyongbok voyaged to Japan to dispute Japanese trespassing on Ulluengdo Island. He presented a document stating 竹島 (Takeshima/Ulleungdo) and 松島 (Matsushima/Dokdo) were part of 江原道 (Korea’s Gangwando Province. These documents were found in the Murakawa household records in 2005. You can see the document here.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/anyongbok-doc15.jpg

    Whatever, the Japanese say the identity of these islands were, we know Anyongbok claimed Matsushima (then Dokdo) as part of Korea. From here the Japanese raised no objections at all and issued a travel ban to Ulleungdo. Japanese say because there was no travel ban to Matsushima (Dokdo) itself this means the island was their land. The truth is Japanese never voyaged 5 days return to these barren rocks EVER. It was pointless. The Japanese only voyaged to Dokdo en route to illegally plunder the rich forests and fishing grounds of Chosun’s Ulleungdo Island. These clandestine voyages to Ulleungdo continued even after the Shogunate explicitly forbid them to.

    In fact when a Japanese merchant named Aizuya Hacheimon was caught trespassing on Ulleungdo in 1836 he was executed by the Shogunate. During his trial he presented this color coded map of the region showing the territorial perceptions of Japanese before the Meiji Era.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/trespass-map.jpg

    Bender, what is this “trap” I’m leading people on this forum into? Why does introducing the historical facts of Japan’s 1905 incorporation amount to “enticing ethno-hatred”? Professor Shimojo insists we use Japan’s 1905 as basis for her to claim sovereignty, I say this is a flawed approach to solving the Dokdo Takeshima Problem.

    Above I gave reasons why the current boundary between Korea and Japan is more than fair. If those on this forum continue to cite historical records as to why Japan should still have Takeshima, they shouldn’t blubber when I counter with facts and documents that show the truth.

  21. Aceface said

    Change in Japan would have no effect to aome of our neighbors,Bender.

    Rught now,Taiwanese politicians belongs to Kuomintang are flaming Anti-Japanese sentiment over the Senkakus,because they have been under criticism from the oppostion that newly elected KMT president may compromise too much to Beijing and hurts the Taiwanese sovereignity.So they are using the occasion of the boat accident in the Senkakus and demanding tougher policy toward Tokyo like recalling the envoy and calling for deployment of a frigate.Doing so,they can shift the argument from protecting Taiwan from China to protecting Taiwan from Japan.
    The prime minister of Legistrative Yuan of Taiwan even spoke about military engagement with Japan.
    This is almost identical situation with South Korea in 1954.The Korean president at the time,Syngman Rhee was basically imcompetent in running government for he was chosen solely for being Anti-Japanese activist.Rhee,though himself was an anti-Japanese,nonetheless had many aides who also served to colonial office of Korean Government general for their ability in legislative skills.But these are the people whom seen as collaborator to general Korean public.

    So when the Korean war was over,lots of anti-Rhee sentiment that had been contained during the war with Pyongyang had came out and brought political upheaval.Eventually led Rhee to take advantage of the opportunity that the U.S ending the Japanese occupation and seized Takeshima(which was used as the point of target practice by American Navy and Airforce).Rhee legitimaize this act by bringing up the some of the logics Steve had showned us.

    This is all the legacy of symbol manipulation from autoctrat days.But in fragile democratic politics of South Korea and Taiwan,Japan bashing always pays.

  22. Ken said

    No matter how much they want to display their chili-pepper-like temper, I never understand buring the photograph of the Emperor who has nothing to do with politics.

    Once Korea ordered the ambassador home, he should not go back to Japan as far as she dose not excuse.

  23. Ken said

    Although there is a proverb, “As far as pheasant does not cluch, it would not be shot.” in Japan, Korean pheasant seems beaten to death even though it does not cluck.

    http://turenet.blog91.fc2.com/blog-entry-2915.html

    It may be their eating raw bowels of wild bird that bird-flu spreads from Korea.

    Next site is for yesterday’s post.

    http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=pfree&page=3&nid=368782&start_range=368775&end_range=368790

  24. Ken said

    Reuters reported Korean massacre of pheasants as follows.

    http://uk.reuters.com/news/video/popup?videoId=87140&pos=10.733&vol=100&popPlayer=true&videoChannel=1

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: