News | Student Life

College dean speaks out in favor of ROTC

Columbia College Dean Michele Moody-Adams said that she came to Tuesday night’s ROTC debate wearing three different hats—those of Columbia administrator, moral philosopher, and former advocate for ROTC at Cornell University.

But the dean’s metaphor, from her opening address to a town hall focused on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps presence on campus, did little to join a room entrenched in two distinct camps.

The town hall was the second in a series of three sponsored by the University Senate’s task force on military engagement, which aims to gauge student opinion on the potential return of an on-campus ROTC program.

In her opening address, Moody-Adams said that with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”—a federal policy that prohibited gays from serving openly in the military—the country is in a new era, and Columbia should consider finding an official place for ROTC on campus.

“I invite you to consider whether the right question may no longer be ‘How could we ever formally recognize ROTC on our campus,’ but, instead, ‘How can we not welcome them back?’ Please do not shy away from this important debate,” she said in closing.

As in the first town hall, a slight majority of the students who volunteered to speak argued adamantly against ROTC’s return, on the grounds that the military still excludes transgender individuals, targets low-income communities, and continues to participate in unjust wars.

Noah Baron, CC ’11, said welcoming ROTC back to campus would mean “throwing transgendered students under the bus.”

Before the repeal, top administrators and University senators had said DADT—which was considered a violation of the University’s nondiscrimination policy—was the main issue standing in the way of a Columbia-sponsored program.

Robert Shapiro, professor of political science, said he was not surprised to see concerns about the military’s recruiting and overseas activities brought to the fore after DADT’s repeal.

“I think it was a little disingenuous for people to claim this would end with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. It was easy to use ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as a smokescreen,” he said.

In her opening speech, Moody-Adams said that even if the country has not “moved as far as it could on the question of discrimination,” now is the time for Columbia to help produce “citizen soldiers” who would benefit from the Core Curriculum.

As a vice provost at Cornell, Moody-Adams supervised academic programming for its ROTC program, the Ivy League’s largest.

Her successor at Cornell, Vice Provost Ronald Seeber, wrote in an email that Moody-Adams felt an obligation to advocate for ROTC as she would any other academic program.

“She most definitely performed that role with her usual competence,” Seeber said.

Phil Caruso, a former Cornell cadet who worked closely with Moody-Adams, wrote to Spectator from Afghanistan to say that Moody-Adams played a key role in expanding ROTC’s presence at Cornell.

She helped cadets secure physical education credit for their training and increased participation in the program, Caruso wrote.

Several students from Lucha, a Latino activist group, and Students for Justice in Palestine said that having the dean of the college open the event with a pro-ROTC speech inserted a bias into the debate.

“There is something wrong when the person with authority, the dean of Columbia College, the person who represents this institution, and spoke as the voice of the institution, begins a supposedly open debate with a biased narrative,” Aarti Sethi, GSAS ’15, said.

Ron Mazor, CC ’09, Law ’12 and chair of the task force, said no one from the University senate reviewed Moody-Adams’ speech beforehand, but they did make it clear that she would be the only speaker.

“I do think she was able to toe the line between expressing an opinion and not closing down debate,” he said, adding that he believed her presence brought many undergraduates out to the event. About 200 people attended.

A couple of transgender students spoke about the discomfort they would feel on campus if ROTC became an official program.

Nico Barragan, CC ’13 and an ROTC air force cadet, said that it’s members of the military who are made to feel uncomfortable on campus.

“I try to avoid walking around campus in my uniform. I get dirty looks and people in class tell me I’m signing up to kill children to pay my tuition bills,” Barragan, who is also the secretary of Columbia Queer Alliance, said.

Learned Foote, CC ’11 and Columbia College Student Council president, said many of the people who speak publicly about ROTC have radical opinions.

“I do wonder what the median Columbia student thinks about this,” he said.

Barragan said he believes most Columbia students support ROTC but remain silent.

“The anti-military are always gonna be the radicals. They’re going to be the loudest but they’re not the majority,” he said.

leah.greenbaum@columbiaspectator.com

Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified Robert Shapiro as James Shapiro. Spectator regrets the error.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misquoted Dean Michele Moody-Adams' closing remarks. Spectator regrets the error.

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Anonymous posted on

I was there, and I don't think Dean Moody-Adams ever said that "now is the time" for ROTC to return to campus. She also clearly stated that she intended "How could we not bring it back?" as a question, not as a statement - she specifically said that the remark should be taken as a question and not as a statement. Also, I was sitting near her, and each time someone said she had spoken in support of ROTC's return, she clearly disagreed and said things like "I did not say that." I wonder if you bothered to try to contact her to see if she is happy with your interpretation of her speech.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

the above quote does phrase that as a question... the punctuation is just up in the air. I sat behind moody-adams and didn't see her say anything after she finished her speech. You'd be crazy to say she didn't give a speech advocating for ROTC's return

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I agree with RB because she specifically said at the end after asking the question "I am leaving this question unanswered and for you."

Could it be, could it just be, that she is correct in advocating for ROTC's return? That the anthro grad students who show up to these things to rant about Palestine and Spanish gold are... wrong? That ROTC should be at Columbia? And that from whatever orifice your personal distaste comes from, you have no right to impose it on others?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Also, IIRC, Mimoo's remarks came from something she previously wrote for the Hamilton Society:
http://www.advocatesforrotc.or...

See the end. It is unambiguously a question.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

MMA is only asking questions. Leave her alone.

Many journalists ask questions all the time, like Fox commentator Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck does not advocate partisan political positions. He's just asking questions. It means you're neutral.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ya. Pretty obvious MMA supports ROTC.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Tongue in cheek, I hope.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I agree with RB. I saw Moody-Adams objecting to the characterizations of her speech as well. I think if this is the kind of journalism the author does, she has a bright career ahead of her at Fox News. I would also like to say that the whole town hall was very civil until the end, when members of the Students for Justice in Palestine spoke. They were rude and engaged in ad hominem attacks against people in the military, and they were the only people catcalling and shouting insults at people who didn't agree with them. That group should be ashamed. Of course, being at a meeting about the U.S. Army's ROTC program does fit with the recent theme of their organization, which has been "Not doing anything about justice in Palestine."

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

If she is rephrasing a question, from "Why should we bring ROTC on this campus?' to "How could we not?" then that rephrasing in and of itself frames the arguments that follow. The question, in and of itself, even if its a "thought experiment" is a political one. Its a tacit acknowledgment of her position. Last year she spoke at the Hamilton Society and effectively said the same things. As far as I know, she has not spoken to the LGBT groups on campus and asked them "How could we not?"

+1
0
-1
Jeb Bush posted on

FYI - Our gay troops are saying "Do Ask, Do Tell" now at http://OutMilitary.com - the New Social Network for Gay Service Members.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Jeb, DADT is still in effect. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said that troops are still at risk under the law. DADT is in effect until certification and the 60 day implementation period have taken effect. Please do not put our gay troops in harm's way by inviting them to join that website.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

This article and the CU Dems president supporting ROTC in Spectator today definitely show the momentum snowballing in favor of ROTC.

Interesting watching anti-ROTC campus reactionaries trying to fight pro-ROTC campus progressives. History alive.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

yes, it's so "reactionary" to be against murdering innocent civilians, glorifying war and invasion, and arguing that the university should be about critical debate and open intellectual production, as opposed to training people in how to use guns and obey appropriate chain of command, and then sending students to risk their lives in foreign countries while those that decide to wage war sit comfortable in washington.

pity these times.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

The military doesn't support "murdering innocent civilians." Your crude representation of the debate is doing a disservice to the discourse that the rest of this campus is trying to have. Yes there have been terrible, terrible abuses - yes there have been too many of them - but there is no military policy of "let's murder a bunch of civilians." As for glorfying war and invasion, I agree that those are bad things, but what is your solution? Because keeping ROTC off campus doesn't solve those problems. Do you want to abolish the military? I'd love to live in a world where such a thing was possible without sacrificing a significant portion of our safety, but I do not believe that the world we have yet meets those conditions.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

They are desperately trying to cling onto something--anything--to justify their opposition: transgendered people, Spanish gold, Bronx public schools, Israeli checkpoints. It's amusing to watch. I don't think they realize how stupid they look. Hahahahaha.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Spanish gold? WTF?

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, one of the anthro grad students made a long-winded analogy about how the US was a militaristic imperialistic fascist corporatist occupying force, just like how the Spanish monarchs took the gold from the Mexicans.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to believe the US is interested in the natural resources of other countries. I mean, I know that the Middle East has a lot of oil (some would call it "black gold") but can't those Arabs and Muslims understand all we want is for them to have democracy? Don't they understand when the US military gives the Yemeni military $75 million in aid in light of recent "incidents" that we are doing it for their own good?

All these "progressive pro-rotc" people are proving is that Columbia's policy of affirmative action for rich people is making the student body stupider, if they weren't already.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

If the US wanted Iraq's oil, it would have been a lot cheaper to just buy it. And God forbid the US gives foreign aid to friendly governments... and here I was thinking America was just a philanthropic organization?! I didn't know we had interests?!

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Can't do much with oil to help the local economy except sell it to the world to pay for other stuff. Saddam Hussein very much wanted us to have his oil ... to sell it to us. We wouldn't buy it beyond the limits set by the sanctions program. Then after it was no longer his oil and Iraqi oil revenue was supposed to pay for building post-Saddam Iraq, terrorists kept blowing up the oil pipelines.

If you ever see someone protesting the imperialists for going into Starbucks to buy coffee, that'll be Pacomdc.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Wait ... isn't oil being bought and paid for in a global market? Are you saying oil-producing nations are selling their oil to the global market unwillingly? That oil-consuming nations are imperialistically forcing money into their pockets?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Calling the people who oppose your point of view "stupid" does nothing to elevate the level of debate and makes your own argument appear weak by default.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, fighting for a robust equal protection policy is just silly. Why don't we repeal the 14th Amendment, while we're at it? Would that be amusing?

...And you're in my year here. How the hell did you get in?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Hush,

I assume you'll be at the next CU blood drive protesting the fact that they don't allow sexually active gay men to donate blood, right?

Think it's possible that *maybe* you and your friends' blanket hatred of everything the military stands for has a *little* bit to do with your "principled" stand against ROTC?

Also, I'm really enjoying the fact that people are casually calling Veterans murderers, both at the hearing and on this page. You would almost think it's hate speech....but that just can't be, since the far-left is all about rallying against hatred, right? I mean, I must be confused because it seems to me that such hateful vitriol aimed at any other group would get you kicked off campus.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

The 14th Amendment and equal protection clause doesn't bar ROTC from Columbia. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

This report in the Spectator implies that I am a member of the Students for Justice for Palestine. I am not. By bracketing my criticism this way, it appears as if the only people who had a problem with Dean Moody opening the session with a clearly biased opinion were students with a particular political viewpoint. I think this is unfair. Dean Moody opening the session is problematic regardless of whatever personal politics one might have. Its a question of procedural ethics, which I strongly feel were flouted yesterday.

Dean Moody is of course entitled to her opinions. However yesterday she spoke not as an individual expressing her individual opinion, but as the voice of the institution. There are many amongst the Columbia faculty who feel as strongly as she does against the re-introduction of ROTC. If this was supposed to be an open debate, then either it should have begun with a neutral statement on the part of the organizers (which is how the last town-hall began), or with both sides allowed to make opening remarks.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

...but you so have a hysterically incomprehensible accent

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

and you may be a racist prick, which explains why you're not willing to post your name

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm not a racist. I don't discriminate on people based on race. I'm more of a linguist. I think if your accent is so out there that the second I hear it I just want to die laughing, you got a problem. There are accent reduction and elimination courses out there.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

...to bad there are no douchiness reduction and elimination courses out there.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

There are. It's called the real world. Try it sometimes. Not everything works like your dreamworld anthro anti-paternalistic-fascist social justicist framework says it will. It's very jarring, but then you get with the program really fast.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Do you speak any other languages??! Well, even if you do, I bet you have an awful annoying american accent that's not even funny.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I speak native-level Korean with no accent at all.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

good, hopefully that means you're always silent.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Sara,

For someone so quick to call another a racist, you might want to turn inwards. I do believe your comment expresses a racist sentiment that Koreans are stereotypically quiet individuals. Nice job!

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Anti-military and racism spring from the same fount of hate. In other words, haters gonna hate, and Sara is a hater.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

clearly this says more about your warped mind than mine. i was, to put it in plain terms, simply drawing attention to the fact that to speak "without" an accent would mean to not speak at all.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, wow, how deep. I'm sure none of us who aren't fortunate enough to be PhD students in the Department of Anthropology who are getting an education for free and $23,000 on top of that would have gotten that deep reference.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Dude, what is your deal with Anthropology? That seems to be your retort every time! Did you try to get in and fail? Did an Anthro student break your heart? Or is it because Anthropology students have to work with 'foreigners' all of whom would have "hysterical" accents that would drive you to a fit of laughter? Also, have you ever travelled outside America? If so, how do you manage to keep a straight face with all those people speaking in their 'hysterical' accents?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

No, actually only a moron who has no conception that there is a world outside America where people might speak differently from his American twang, and that his "English" is as accented as anyone else's would not get that.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Sara, I think we should encourage this person to keep posting. Let everyone see that this is just the beginning of what will happen when we militarize this campus.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Your assumption that everyone who is pro-military is racist does not reflect much more favorably upon you than the previous guy's racism.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I implied no such thing. I said it is a beginning. Besides, I'm just asking questions like MMA.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

"It's a beginning" = "If we allow the military on campus, the campus will be full of racists," no? If so, it's hard to see how you get there without assuming that everyone (or most people) who supports the military is racist.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're not allowed to be racist in the Army. Of course, individuals differ but you're not allowed to bring that stuff to work in a job that can be 24/7. The military is actually a lot stricter about racism than Columbia since soldiers of different races and ethnicities must trust each other with their lives. More than that, think of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had to live with, work with, and fight with Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and police, often outnumbered by them in isolated situations. Our soldiers have died for the sake of non-American, let alone different-race, comrades. If you're going to be racist in the Army, you better bury that shit - deep.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

The military was desegregated in 1948, long before Brown vs. Board of Education, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Little Rock, etc. The US military is one of the few institutions where it's fairly common to see minority officers commanding units of people from a truly diverse mix of ethnic backgrounds--white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever. This is the equivalent of posting a link to Major Nidal Hassan then claiming all Muslims are terrorists.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

" *
This is the equivalent of posting a link to Major Nidal Hassan then claiming all Muslims are terrorists."
No its not. Its simply a reminder that institutions like the military brutalize the people within them as much the people they are deployed against. It is impossible to function as a soldier without a fairly clear idea of who the "enemy" is, and the de-humanization of people that accompanies this training is not an aberration, its necessary. This is why those who oppose the re-introduction of ROTC are pointing to a fundamental opposition between the values that undergird the military as an institution and the university. This is not a debate about whther a military is required or not. It is simply a demand that these remain separate spaces. I don't think thats "radical" or "left" or "loony" at all. Its perfectly reasonable. The military has its own universities, we are simply saying that liberal institutions should not have to undermine their own values in the service of aims that military schools fulfill anyway. Why are we being asked to take on the mantle of training officers?
Flag
Like Reply Reply
Replying to CC'10-now Army
Post as … Cancel
*

MMA is jedi [Moderator] 55 minutes ago in reply to Aarti Sethi
Beware MMA and her jedi mind tricks.

+1
0
-1
Sean posted on

To prevent the military leadership from becoming a caste system that is completely separate and alien from the society it serves. To instill in officers the liberal values that Columbia espouses and to provide them with the philosophical grounding and critical thinking skills afforded by what is arguably among the best core curricula in the United States. This is why ROTC pals such a critical role in general. We want the leaders of our soldiers to come from all walks of life and to be exposed to a whole host of ideas, cultures, and beliefs.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thank you Sara for providing us an in depth analysis of the racist culture in the military as you know from your vast experience of being in it. As a veteran I would ask you to please stop labeling us as racist. The military that I was a part of instilled in us from basic training that we were no longer white, black, brown, yellow, green or purple but the same color, the color of whatever uniform we wore. While not everyone always lived up to these values those who didn't were punished and am glad to say that one red-neck as racist from Kentucky was even discharged for his conduct and comments.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

It's not easy being green, bro (or sis).

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Of course racism is institutionalized. That's why those guys are being court-martialed.... (?)

+1
0
-1
Азиз Атак posted on

Sara, take a knee and drink lots of water and calm down. Don't be hating the military because a few dudes do bad things. Who's perfect in this world? ROTC will be good for Columbia because it gives a choice to people to serve if they want to. Are you against freedom of choice? If you don't like US military, go find a home in some other country. I love US because I came from dictatorship of Uzbekistan and served proudly in the US military because I am grateful to live in this country.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Beware MMA and her jedi mind tricks.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Your substantive opinion was that the military is nothing more than an authoritarian hierarchy of violence that is incompatible with democracy and the freedom of thought and expression found in universities.

It was a mistake for the reporter to conflate your identity as a graduate student of anthropology with membership in a partisan organization opposed to ROTC.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I stopped reading the comments a few back because this relationship being built between racism and the military is driving me nuts. I grew up in a pretty much all white community. They even bused kids in from poorer neighborhoods to "diversify" our schools, which I know is pathetic. The military was the first place I met kids of other races; and I mean that I was living, working, eating, fighting, sleeping, and laughing with them. It wasn't some forced effort on part of my high school, and it wasn't me going to college and meeting kids who grew up just like me who happen to be a different race. I was meeting kids from completely different backgrounds from all over the US.

I know kids who are covered in swastikas and other white supremacy tattoos who are best friends with black and latino kids because of the military. I acknowledge that there are racists in the military. There's racist everywhere. I don't doubt some of the international students at Columbia are probably racist. But to group all service members or the actions of the military under "racist" is incorrect and ignorant.

And one more thing-don't reference other countries military's when talking about America's as though they are one and the same. That would be like comparing the US to other countries based solely on the fact they are both countries. It's not the IDF, it's not India's military, it's America's. We may assist many countries armed forces, that doesn't mean that we are those countries.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

this debate has become so ugly and acrimonious that no one seems to be engaging anyone's substantive positions anymore....

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

James Shapiro teaches English, not PoliSci. Robert Shapiro is in the PoliSci department.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument that because the military targets low-income minority children, we should keep it out of our wealthy, heavily white school. Doesn't that just perpetuate the problem?

Sincerely,
A low-income minority child, all grow'd up.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thank you. These comments are insulting and make no sense. I was in the service, and while I'm from an affluent community, I never once had the feeling that low-income kids were somehow being "tricked" into serving. And if I feel insulted, I know all those kids who couldn't afford to go to college without the GI Bill probably are even more pissed about it.

Also, I don't exactly know what ROTC does, but I'm pretty sure they won't go to low-income areas and "recruit" all those "low-income children". Most likely they'll do community service to help those in need.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

My recruiter told me Basic Training was like summer camp with more exercise. Other than that, no complaints.

+1
+1
-1
Азиз Атак posted on

Basic training was awesome. I liked getting yelled by drill sergeants... Columbia non military student should get yelled at to learn some good life lessons.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I love how these kids so willing to fight ROTC on our campus could be using their time for more meaningful work in their community. They seem so fervent about wanting to fix things, but their shoddy arguments all seem to be sourced from obviously sheltered lives.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

@ Karim: A little heads-up. Do you actually know any of the people who oppose ROTC on campus? Have you ever spoken to a single one of them? You don't know their histories, where they come from, what they did before they came to Columbia, and what they continue to do in "their communities" while at Columbia. It of course does not occur to you that the reason they might oppose ROTC is precisely because they might know, first-hand, something of what war and militarization does to communities. There is no reason for you to know, I mean we're not friends or even acquaintances, however perhaps a little reticence is in order when discussing people's motivations.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

So, this is the tone of serious intellectual debate that occurs in the Ivy League? Make me glad I didn't get in.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Hey all you CU liberal punk nutjobs, you and your fellow students should be ashamed of yourselves for heckling a disabled war vet, who happens to be one of your fellow students. Dean moody-Adams, what kind of people are you educating at CU? This stunt is pathetic and disgusting. Not surprising though coming from a school that gave a full platform to Ahmadinejad, I am sure the students listened very intently to that deranged dictator. You people make me sick.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

If you actually listened to the transcript which has been released (backed up by an audio clip) you would realize that there was no heckling.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Not true.

+1
-1
-1
lflagr posted on

Wow. I love how CU libs are for "free speech"...except when they disagree with somebody.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

FUCK COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: http://www.facebook.com/#!/hom...

yeah, throwing the 14 transgendered Columbia students under the bus full of 70000 wounded, 5000 dead, 1,500,000 veterans would be just such a terrible disgusting act. i doubt if u asked any veteran or soldier if they care about a persons sexual orientation in the service you would get much more of an answer than "as long as they stand and fight, and pull the trigger, i dont care what they do in their off time" and how fucking dare you assholes talk down on a veteran who took 11 damn bullets so that you could sit in the auditorium without worrying about a suicide bomber or something taking you out. to those who DID "heckle" that guy, youre the worst kind of coward, jsut an educated pussy with big words and no meaning. you little girls wouldnt say shit to me on the street, but i guess its not a fair fight for you when a soldier ISNT in a wheel chair and hasnt been recovering for 2+ years in a military hospital. hippie days are numbered, you wanted to listen to the voice of irans dictator, well how about you listen to the egyptian people, and the rest of the arabs now fighting for their own freedom in the streets....is that part of "americas plan for unjust war and total domination" that yall sooooo believe is happening? no. thats human evolution. i hope you all choke on a spork or get hit by semi trucks.

+1
-1
-1