Climate demonstrators need to vote

photo Jonathan Brady

Photos and videos of about four million people around the world rallying last week to urge action on climate change were inspiring.  Thankfully, global warming is no longer a marginal issue. From a quarter of a million demonstrating in New  York City to young girls leaving their school in Kabul, Afghanistan despite the danger,  to thousands clogging city streets around the world, young people held homemade signs expressing their concern, from “There is no Planet B,” to my teenage neighbor’s sign, “I want a hot date, not a hot planet.” The mobilization was stirring, but what’s the strategy for going beyond passion?

Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden is the new face of the environmentalist movement. Her eloquent and  impassioned speech admonishing world leaders at the United Nations Climate Action Summit was chillingly on target. Her words were moving, but what will be their impact?

Short term, not much. Yes there were a few good signs. Almost 70 countries say they will come up with stronger NDCs (National Determined Contributions) next year.   A group of pension funds and insurance companies managing more than $2 trillion promised to divest from fossil fuels by mid-century. The Gates Foundation, World Bank and some  governments pledged $790 million  to help small farmers adapt to climate change. Thirty countries, including Germany,  are now committed to eventually ending their reliance on coal. But the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases fell woefully short.

India talked about its embrace of renewables but was silent on its tremendous problem with coal. China dinged the US for pulling out of the Paris Accord and boasted about its being ahead of schedule on its NDC, but its schedule falls short of meeting the 2 degree Celsius target. And the United States, led by a climate change denier, skipped the summit.

Fortunately, the young people and some of their elders are not giving up. They were back out on the streets today. Greta was in Montreal  leading a demonstration against the airline industry. Many have embraced her message that “we’ll be watching you…We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”

It will be dangerous, however,  to rely solely on national government action as the silver bullet to save our planet, demonizing corporations and dismissing the benefits of consciousness-raising small local and personal  initiatives.

We need an array of  multi-prong strategies.  Yes, countries must  do much more to up their games in the run-up to COP25 in Santiago, Chile in December  when nations are scheduled to reveal how they intend to meet their NDC pledges. NGO organizing and exhortations and  the donations of philanthropic foundations continue to be vital and deserve our support. But we should embrace free-market environmental initiatives using capitalist incentives that harness raw profit motives to effect change. Consumer spending, employee demands and freshly applied stakeholder  pressures can also motivate once-recalcitrant corporations to change their carbon footprints dramatically.

We also can’t let ourselves be distracted by jokes about bovine flatulence and attacks on changing light bulbs and banning plastic straws. As Greta Thunberg says, “No one is too small to make a difference.” But simply believing in  the science of man-made changes in global warming only takes us so far, if we don’t take specific steps, in our personal behavior in our daily lives.

That means not only what we eat and how we travel, but how we vote.  As I look at the pictures of the young people who may be the hope of the planet, I wonder how many are registered to vote and, of those registered, how many do vote. The increased youth turnout in the 2018 election was still paltry compared to older groups, 66 percent of whom voted. If demonstrators and their persuadable friends and neighbors don’t act to turn out of office all climate deniers from the White House, Congress, state and local offices, (as well as similar positions worldwide), all the international protest will be so much hot air. Young people today are “woke” on climate, and they can best prove it by translating that spirit into electoral action.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Responsibility to impeach: how to make it count

Six months ago, I agreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s disinclination to impeach President Trump. As she put it, “unless there’s something that’s so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.” Besides, she added, “He’s just not worth it.”  It was, I agreed, “shrewdly strategic to chill the left’s lust for impeachment at this time.”  But that was then, and this is now.

The drip, drip, drip demonstrating the Grifter-in-Chief’s  repeated “high crimes and misdemeanors,” his wanton abuse of power, was already  dangerous. His admitted effort to weaponize Ukraine in the 2020 election  -featuring the Orwellian twist of the Trump-Giuliani  gambit – put me over the edge.

Yes, we could leave it to the better angels in the 2020 electorate to turn Trump out of  office. But the need to impeach is as much about future generations as it is about today. We fault the Republicans for not criticizing the President’s misdeeds. We should also fault the Democrats for not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to investigate the allegations of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against Donald Trump. In the second paragraph of Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses included “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”  For Congress not to investigate and, presumably, file a bill to impeach Donald Trump is a dereliction of duty. The House Judiciary Committee is off to a limp start.

The Speaker remains cool to the idea of impeachment because she doesn’t have the votes. But remember, two bills to impeach Richard Nixon were filed in 1972 and were not acted upon.  By July 31, 1973 when our own Congressman Bob Drinan filed a bill to impeach Richard Nixon (based on the illegal bombing of Cambodia not the Watergate break-in) , the vote, had it been held, would still have been 400 members of the House against.  It took until July, 1974 for the House, after lengthy investigation to say yes to three articles of impeachment. Two weeks later, with the handwriting on the wall, Nixon resigned. So this is a process, but it has to start somewhere with House members courageous enough to put the “i” word in writing.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler just held the first session of what he is calling an “impeachment inquiry,” but Speaker Pelosi and her inside circle are still not calling it that. She’s apparently concerned about the political fallout for House members in purple to reddish districts.  And there are other pitfalls.

The despicable conduct of former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski at the Judiciary Committee’s first hearing into the President’s obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation of 2016 Russian campaign meddling descended into pure chaos. Lewandowski’s admission that he sees no problem in lying to the media and the public and his stonewalling and claims of executive privilege all raised the specter of Richard Nixon’s  1973-4 strategy on steroids.  The Democrats have to maintain their dignity (often a tall order), stay focused on the facts, and use every legal strategy available to get access to people and documents.  They must also be able to walk and chew gum, at the same time pursuing programmatic goals and pushing bills – on health care, climate, gun safety, for example – over to the Senate.  Doing that could help queasy red state Democrats get reelected.

For Democrats to do any less is to shrug off the manifold wrong-doing of this administration, thereby validating that we have lowered to swamp-level  the threshold on acceptable norms of Presidential behavior.  Not to do so will give the green light to future Presidents to abuse power, usurp Congressional actions, violate the emoluments clause to enrich his (or her) private interests at public expense, cover up misdeeds by refusing to cooperate with legally required Congressional requests for information, put his personal and political interests above national security and more. (Note: this is above and beyond whatever policy disagreements I might have with him.)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is very scary stuff. We need an infusion of backbone on both sides of the aisle, but at the very least from the Democrats.  If, following a thorough  investigation, a bill of impeachment passes the House but it is clear that the Senate won’t convict, then the House should not refer impeachment to the Senate. To do so would only feed the President ‘s  unjustifiable claims of exoneration. Instead, the House should, at a minimum, vote to censure the President.  It happened to President Andrew Jackson in 1834 for withholding documents. Sound familiar? The House must do something meaningful about this incompetent, unfit miscreant who is a threat to our Constitution and the future of our democracy.

If the Senate, already a hollow shell of what our founders envisioned, cravenly decides to take a roll call or, worse still, a voice vote on its own resolution of “exoneration,” it will do so not in response to a lawful impeachment  referral. It can’t hold a proper Senate trial without a referral. It can’t acquit. He cannot be found “not guilty.”

Forty-five years ago, columnist Carl Rowan reflected on “The Real Watergate Lesson.” He said in the end it wasn’t about the illegal diversion of money. “We need to remember that if $3000 of taxpayer money is stolen, we may regain that somehow. But when the men  [and women] we elect to power steal our liberties,  our constitutional rights, we may never be able to regain them.” Amen.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Dem debate 3: is there a winner in the bunch?

Most days I am seething and  grinding my teeth.  Sometimes Donald Trump makes me feel like Jean Giraudoux’ Madwoman of Chaillot, about a disillusioned idealist who wants to “rescue humanity from the scheming and corrupt developers.” Words fail me. Tearing my hair out will be useless. Work, study and other civic commitments are but a passing distraction, as with Netflix. I need to feel that the Democrats will nominate and rally behind someone who can defeat the incumbent President. Thursday’s Democratic debate, narrowed to ten, was somewhat reassuring.  It was also a good first audition for a potential  “team of rivals” cabinet.

Joe Biden came out of the gate strong, especially on Medicare for All, which the left has embraced, but, except for Bernie, is reluctant to explain clearly.  Biden’s more moderate strategy of building on the Affordable Care Act and adding a public option makes more sense than the Sanders/Warren approach to eliminating private insurers. Biden was also good on the cost projections. [No one asked Sanders why his plan would work for the country while his state’s model failed.]

Save for his vice presidential confrontation with Paul Ryan in 2012, Biden has never done well in the debate format. As the three-hour event went along, he became increasingly syntax-challenged but it was by far his best debate performance. Ordinary Joe’s  relatable style, best on display in his closing, surely pleased his apparent demographic base. And the response to ageist attacks onstage  by Julian Castro and later Corey Booker only seems to have enhanced his standing.

Elizabeth Warren is the brightest of the lot and has been running a sophisticated campaign. She has made good use of her personal odyssey, which may appeal to some Obama-turned-Trump voters. Her “I have a plan for that” is attractive to well-educated “issues” voters.  She’s also the best debater, a talent on display Thursday, in deftly not answering  direct questions about clear ambiguities in her health insurance proposal. [Who exactly is “middle class?”]  Perhaps she learned the lesson of Kamela Harris, who first proclaimed fealty to Sander’s  legislation and then badly stumbled while pirouetting away from its implications.  Warren performed well.    How she navigates this issue in the months ahead will tell us a lot about her “electability.”

Bernie Sanders was on message with the same passion and authenticity he exhibited in 2016. No one raised his older-than Biden age as a disqualification. But I wonder how many feel as I did that he comes across as  just a red-faced angry man, never once cracking a smile, consistent in his policy and unpleasantness, and increasingly irrelevant but for his supporters who may migrate to Warren.

Several lower tier candidates upped their games. Beto O’Rourke had moments of polish and passion, especially when it came to his boldly stated positions on gun control and his commitment to banning assault rifles and buying them back. But Amy Klobuchar, in her best campaign cameo to date, trumped him in articulating the importance of  balancing worthwhile goals with practical strategies for achieving them. She appropriately explained that a strong House-passed gun safety bill is now in the Senate being blocked by Mitch McConnell.

Kamala Harris  came off as somewhat tentative and less focused substantively than she has in the past. But she  was the only one to point out the clear and present dangers of what Trump is doing now to American heath care if upheld in the courts. Corey Booker, rhetorically  smooth as usual,  struck the right tone is saying that “we beat China by working with our allies in common cause with common purpose.” But, beyond Biden, where was the discussion of how an even flawed Transpacific Partnership would have done just that.

Credit is due to ABC, whose marathon format was the most disciplined to date and evoked the most substance we have seen. But there were still problems, not just the optics of having the black questioner ask about race and the Hispanic one lead off about immigration.

It was silly to waste airtime asking Booker about the possibility of his proselytizing  his vegan habits.  It was one cut away from Barbara Walters asking her interviewees what kind of tree they’d choose to be. Given the  debate location at one of the historically black colleges and universities, it could have been more provocative and enlightening to have asked the candidates their views on a proposal to have elite black athletes go to HBCUs instead of big-time Division I schools?

Where was the question dealing  with the multi-generational impact of  Trump’s  Supreme Court  and other appointments, the importance of voting and fighting voter suppression efforts?  Where were questions about the deficit,  tax policy and rolling back Trump’s tax cuts.   Going forward, we could use separate debates limited to, say, climate change, immigration, the economy or foreign policy.Or make other changes to  the debate format.  Still grinding my teeth.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.


Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Project Look Out:” changing driving behavior


photo SafeNebraska

Remember the old days when  the term “designated driver” evoked A.J. Foyt or Mario Andretti? By the 1980’s, however, we learned that “designated driver” meant the guy (or gal) at the party who wouldn’t drink so someone would be around to drive home sober. The idea of designated driver was the result of a nationwide public service campaign driven by Jay Winsten and the Harvard’s Center for Health Communication to combat drunk driving fatalities. There were public service announcements, news stories and other traditional elements of a media campaign.  Winsten also went to the entertainment industry, including the soaps, so they wove the need for designated drivers into their story lines.

Winsten is at it again with a national campaign to prevent deaths and injuries from distracted driving, and it’s not a minute too soon. The Massachusetts legislature has largely sat on the issue for 15 years, banning only texting while driving and drivers under 18 from cell phone use.  A bill to ban all drivers from using hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel has finally passed both branches and is in conference committee, but there’s no guarantee of action when the legislature returns from summer recess. Jay Winsten’s campaign is one of national persuasion, with the goal of changing behavior as he did with drunk driving.

Project Look Out would follow the same model.  With the earlier designated driver campaign, he raised over $100 million in in-kind contributions from Hollywood studios and TV networks.  He hopes to do that again, seeking widespread adoption of the concept of the “attentive driver,” one who, like an owl, scans the road for unexpected danger.  Project Look Out will also encourage passengers to speak up when their drivers are exhibiting behavior that distracts them from the road.  Particular attention will be paid to the New England region, where the four percent jump in traffic fatalities in 2018 was the highest of any region in the country.  Nationally, road deaths actually fell a little.

Safe use of new technologies will figure importantly, which is why passage of the hand-held cell phone ban is so important.  Drivers, many of whom take pride in their prowess at multi-tasking, will be encouraged instead to be proactive in the face of other distracted drivers, to watch out for cyclists and pedestrians, a vehicle drifting from its lane, a stopped school bus; backed-up traffic.  Wide use will be made of social media, broadcast and cable stations across the country, and local civic organizations.  As Winsten did with his drunk driving and domestic abuse campaigns, he’ll encourage local media to carry the message forward.

We can all do better to develop the skills of active scanning and situational awareness, much like the owl, with its turning head and piercing eyes,  that will be the logo of Project Look Out.  Meanwhile, until the campaign launches, it would be useful to pressure our senators and representatives to iron out their few differences and get the ban on hand-held cell phones passed and signed into law before more injuries and fatalities happen on the state’s already congested and dangerous roadways.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Mass. Senate race: an embarrassment of riches?

No one has a right to hold onto an office in perpetuity, but having served a long time shouldn’t necessarily be a disqualifier. Senator Ed Markey has been in public office nearly half a century.  The one-term+ US Senator has been in  Washington for 43 years,  both as a member of the House and of the Senate. He has been a national leader on telecommunications, energy and climate change, a staunch supporter of gun safety and universal health care access.  The possibility that three-term Congressman Joe Kennedy, 38, may be considering running against him poses the question of whether, given their general agreement on issues, one should mount a challenge just because a younger generation may be tired of Ed Markey, age 73.  Or perhaps voters don’t really know him or his record.

I have covered Ed Markey for 43 years, since he topped a field of 12 candidates running for the House seat being vacated by Torbert McDonald, a Kennedy insider remembered mostly for falling asleep at his desk in the House chamber.  Markey, son of a milkman, visited Washington for the first time as congressman-elect.  Since his days as a freshman, he has grown in substance and effectiveness. He has poured his life into serving the public on cutting-edge issues, frequently becoming the leading expert and building support for change.  While his often-staccato way of speaking can be annoying,  his actions have been on target and consistent.  His electoral vulnerability speaks to a generational shift and, as evidenced by Ayanna Pressley’s surprise 2018 upset of longtime congressman Michael Capuano, a desire for something and someone new.

But 4th district Congressman Joe Kennedy III isn’t just the newest shiny object.  He is the real deal.  Scion of Massachusetts political royalty, he is the most down-to-earth of the clan, charming, bright, articulate, hard-working and, yes, even humble.  A Peace Corps alum, fluent in Spanish, Kennedy graduated from Stanford and Harvard Law School, worked in non-profits serving the young and disadvantaged, and as an assistant district attorney. In the House, he has developed relationships across the country and across the aisle. His demeanor and seriousness of purpose led to his being tapped to give the Democratic response to President Trump’s 2018 State-of-the-Union speech.  His future would seem limitless.

But is this the right time?  He could, I suppose, be persuaded by Markey’s decision to drop out of the 1984 race for Paul Tsongas’ open Senate seat in 1984, remembering that it was 30 years before another opportune moment arose (when John Kerry left the Senate to become Secretary of State). A group of activists has formed a movement to draft JK3, and a privately funded poll reportedly found him somewhat favored to defeat Markey. (We don’t know what the actual numbers are.)   But because he might, does that mean he should?

Markey has received high-profile endorsements, from NARAL Pro-Choice America to party heavies and a majority of his Massachusetts House colleagues. (Seth Moulton and Ayanna Presley have not endorsed him. Cong. Katherine Clark will defer taking sides until a later time.) Today, Markey released a video of Elizabeth Warren enthusiastically restating her support of him.

Markey seems unlikely to retire, stepping aside for Kennedy.  He already has two other Democratic primary challengers, neither of whom would pose an existential threat. Kennedy, if he decided to run, would be the toughest opponent Markey has ever faced. Two good guys would be at each other’s throats, the old lion and the young alpha male. I really like both of them, who they are and what they stand for. The primary could cost well more than ten million dollars, money that could be better spent trying to win Senate seats in battleground states.

At this time, it appears the only things that separate them are age and style. And we’ll all have to decide if those factors are enough to throw the old warrior out of office. With both Warren and Markey in their ’70’s, it’s unlikely that Kennedy will have to wait  as long as Markey did to take his Senate shot.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Political wheeling and dealing flirts with criminal

Getty image

You scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours has always been one of the rules of the political road in Boston.  Behaviors can be very subtle but still powerful, their meaning clear.  As alderman, state rep and state senator, Martin Lomasney used to say, “Don’t write when you can talk; don’t talk when you can nod; don’t nod when you can wink.”   The West End political boss knew the art of accumulating and wielding power. He knew how to play political hardball with a soft touch.  But you can be sure every quid had a quo.

Decades later, not every Boston official was as practiced in the subtleties of the art. When I was a little girl, my father and uncle owned a commercial building on Canal Street, next to what is now Government Center.  I remember one night when my father, as straight an arrow as ever existed, came home to tell of a visit from a city inspector who made it very clear that, unless my father paid him off, this hack would stand in the way of the building’s elevator getting a certificate of inspection.  My journalism gene hadn’t yet kicked in, and I never followed up to find out how my father, a model of probity, had dealt with the situation.

Sometimes the wheeling and dealing worked in one’s favor.  When Government Center was being designed,  our family’s building was threatened by eminent domain. Right across the street, however, was a small grassy triangle often used by the nearby Langone Funeral Home to park its hearses when they were not carrying dead bodies. The Langone family was huge in Boston politics for at least three generations.  When the plans for renewal of the area were being developed, Fred Langone happened to be City Councillor .  That grassy parking triangle was not going away, nor did my father’s building. Need I say more?

We all recognize when decisions, however positive, are made not on the merits but because someone knows someone on the inside or is wielding threats directly or implicitly. There seems to have been a lot of that in the case against City Hall employees Timothy Sullivan and Kenneth Brissette, found guilty this past week of extorting union jobs from Boston Calling music festival producers in 2014, that hiring in exchange for smoothing the permitting process.  The jury’s guilty verdict may have surprised some people because Sullivan and Brissette received nothing of value to them personally.  But couldn’t the more subtle payoff for them have been pleasing their boss, Mayor Marty Walsh, who had previously led the Building Trades Council and won office the first time with plenty of union support, including that International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees?

There are certainly gray areas in the deals cut to do business in this city. What about developers who get city approval for a large project in exchange for providing certain public amenities or affordable housing units?  Some might argue that hiring union labor is a comparable public good.  But at what point does strong-arming a person or company to do something become illegal?  It’s still possible that the verdict will be set aside by the judge, but the jury made a statement: the public is better served by clear rules of the road for conducting city business with transparent criteria for municipal decision-making and administration, and a  playbook that levels the field for all comers. No arm twisting; not even any winks or nods, with all due respect to the Lomasneys, Langones and James Michael Curleys who set the standards back in the day.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Trump on gun violence: judge him by his actions

photo Getty

In a speech prepared for him to read from the Oval Office, President Trump has condemned the shootings in Dayton and El Paso, calling for unity in opposing hatred, white supremacists, violence, especially on the internet and social media, and promising additional resources for the FBI in addressing domestic terrorism.  It approached presidential in content and tone, its language in stark contrast to the last three years of his behavior.

But even his improved rhetoric fell far short of serious gun safety reform and scarcely veils the same old same old.  George Conway, spouse of Trump adviser Kellyanne, called Trump an evil racist political leader, a narcissist and sociopath, whose twitter rants will resume quickly and obliterate his speech.   Senator Cory Booker’s assessment was even more to the point: “Such a bullshit soup of ineffective words.”

It is clear that two mass shootings in 24 hours, one shooter having published a manifesto railing against immigrants and Mexicans, seal our global brand as a leader in domestic terrorism.  It is also patently clear that the President is either clueless or simply deceitful about his complicity in degrading norms of behavior and giving license to the verbal and behavioral expression of racism, hatred and intolerance toward “others,” especially those who are different because of the color of their skin, ethnic heritage, or immigrant status.  This intolerance predated President Trump, but he has, for his own political purposes, encouraged white nationalism into the open. He has fanned the flames of division, notwithstanding today’s attempt to use the language of bringing people together.

Could this be a turning point?  History challenges that wisp of hope.  After Newtown, there were meetings at the highest level about changing gun laws. Nothing happened. After Parkland, some modest agreement seemed within reach, but the NRA had Trump’s ear, and he walked away.  Hope for change was rekindled, but, other than the narrow step of banning bump stocks after a terrible Las Vegas shooting, nothing happened.  (Bump stocks are an accessory that allows rifles to fire as rapidly as automatic weapons.)

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, if the President is serious about meaningful background checks, he’ll get Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring to the floor two slightly bipartisan, House-passed bills achieving that goal. Donald Trump is mercurial, and one reasonably presidential call for unity in opposing hatred can’t hide the fact that his top priority is playing to the basest instincts of his base.

Trump is not alone in his cowardice.  CNN’s Jake Tapper has called out Republican officials in Texas who declined to speak out regarding the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, including Texas’ GOP governor, lieutenant governor, and two U.S. Senators as well as the Republican Governor of Ohio, all of whom dodged interviews.  Rare exceptions were Jeb Bush’s son Texas Lands Commissioner George P. Bush, who denounced white terrorism, and Republican state lawmaker John McCollister who called out his party for “enabling white supremacy.” “When the history books are written,” McCollister said, “I refuse to be someone who said nothing. The time is now for us Republicans to be honest with what is happening inside our party.”  He implored his GOP colleagues “to stand up and do the right thing.”

I doubt the once “grand old party” will respond to his appeal. I am not registered to either political party. I do believe, however, that, despite overwhelming public support, even among legal gun owners, for more meaningful background checks, the only chance for modest, let alone significant change will come when Donald Trump is kicked out of office and the Democrats regain control of the Senate. That’s where the focus for the next 15 months must remain, and where all of our energies must be directed.

welcome your feedback in the comments section below. To be alerted when a new blog is posted, click on “Follow’ in the lower right portion of your screen.




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: