Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

October 29, 2010

A nice compliment from Alexander Cockburn

Filed under: Dotty Nation Magazine writers — louisproyect @ 7:53 pm

Not Todd Gitlin, despite the flag


Who says these days that in the last analysis, the only way to change the status quo and challenge the Money Power of Wall St is to overthrow the government by force? That isn’t some old Trotskyist lag like Louis Proyect, dozing on the dungheap of history like Odysseus’ lice-ridden old hound Argos, woofing with alarm as the shadow of a new idea darkens the threshold.

This is the kindest thing I have heard from a Nation Magazine writer ever since Marc Cooper called me a “prolific buffoon”. I only wish I had place for it on my blog like Doug Henwood put on LBO:

“You’re scum…sick and twisted…it’s tragic you exist.” – former Wall Street Journal executive editor Norman Pearlstine, who has gone on to great things at Time Inc.

I should add that I spotted Alex’s fulmination not 5 minutes after sending in $25 to the Counterpunch fund-drive.


  1. It’s sort of scary how much Cockburn looks like gold bug huckster Bill Bonner.

    Comment by Slaney Black — October 29, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

  2. More fool you, Lou. What was that got to you? Was it the plaintive ad saying, “You can help poor little Alex Cockburn buy more Mendocino weed and shotgun shells . . . or you can click to another site!”

    I remained resolute.

    Two queries: what the fuck is a “lag”? Shouldn’t Anglo-Irish aristocrats be forced to abandon their British public school argot when they become US citizens?

    And second, why does Alex feel forced to diss poor old Argos? I assume he’s trotting out his public school and Oxford Classics creds, but he gets Argos wrong: the poor old pup’s signal trait is not sleeping on dunghills, but remembering Odysseus from twenty years or more before. And a sense of smell and memory is not a bad trait for an aging marxist to have.

    Comment by Jim Holstun — October 29, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

  3. Jim, as I told Jeff St. Clair, no matter how much I badmouth Alexander, I really rely on Counterpunch.

    Comment by louisproyect — October 29, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

  4. Fuck, Lou,you’re probably right. And Cockburn is a sort of hero for me (he said with a shrug and a grimace). Maybe I’ll even re-up.

    It’s just that I get so sick of the climate-change denialism, the dyke-bashing, the sneering at gun control, and the little soupcons of Jew-hating. I have a sneaking suspicion that all this is a pathetic effort to sound like an authentically anti-PC North Coast Merikin, but to my ear, it comes off more like the neighing prejudices of a batty British country squire, or upper-class twit of the year.

    Comment by Jim Holstun — October 30, 2010 @ 12:31 am

  5. Alexander used to be found of asking every new Nation intern: “But is your hate pure?”

    Apparently old Cockburn’s hate is no longer pure.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — October 30, 2010 @ 12:34 am

  6. From what I recall, he’s a dual citizen as are many of his relatives such as this more photogenic niece.

    Comment by sk — October 30, 2010 @ 2:03 am

  7. Speaking of Greek Mythology, Alex C is like on of the many who ignored Cassandra’s warnings.

    Comment by SGuy — October 30, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  8. if Cockburn is using you for fundraising purposes, you should consider asking for a percentage of the proceeds 🙂

    Comment by Richard Estes — October 30, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

  9. A ‘lag’ is an old English measure – approximately hogsheads, or half a cubic furlong.

    Comment by Eugene — October 30, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

  10. Jew-hating? Where?

    Comment by Graham — October 31, 2010 @ 1:43 am

  11. I’ve got a problem with his subtle anti-semitism over the years but I’ve no problem with sneering at gun control liberals.

    Control the public’s right to guns and then only cops have them.

    If one could convince me that Marx, Lenin & Trotsky would be for gun control then I might ponder the notion.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — October 31, 2010 @ 3:25 am

  12. The phrase is “old lag”. It means someone who has been in prison many times. Most people of all classes in the British Isles are very familiar with the expression. It is by no means exclusive to elite schools.

    Comment by Peter Byrne — October 31, 2010 @ 8:49 am

  13. I stopped supporting Counterpunch because of exactly this increasingly right-wing turn exhibited in the linked article (and their publication of material by antisemites up to and including self-declared “ex-Jew” Israeli Shamir . Maybe A.C. views it as a tactical alliance, but if you run with the dogs you’ll catch flees.

    Comment by christian h. — October 31, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

  14. If one could convince me that Marx, Lenin & Trotsky would be for gun control then I might ponder the notion.

    I think that’s a disturbing way of thinking about arguments

    Comment by PfromGermany — October 31, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

  15. I think a good starting point would be to question what kind of advantage there will be for the USAmerican people when you take their guns away?
    Guns aren’t just the sole property of tea partiers, loony survivalist militias and the cops, they come to a good use in the hands of the First Nations movements and could be used to protect activists against violent FBI raids. They’ll see they can’t just waltz into the apartment with tasers flaring.

    Comment by Michael T — October 31, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

  16. As much as i dislike Alec Cockburn for many of the reasons listed by the other commentators, you did release a battery of articles that that stick it to him, all deservingly I must add Louis.
    I gave up relying on counterpunch in 06.

    Comment by Michael T — October 31, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

  17. PfromG:

    There’s been very little I’ve written that hasn’t been “disturbing” to your viscerally anti-communist ideology so one more “disturbing” sentence is just par for the course.

    The fact is that Liberal Gun Control ideology, as distinct from pacifism, is alien to a revolutionist’s vernacular in general and Marxism in particular.

    Call me old school but I still believe that armed workers are the purest form of democracy, whereas from what I’ve gathered from your posts is that it’d be a better world if only the police & the military were armed.

    As for the ultimate utopia, which I’m for, where weapons have vanished because there was no longer a need for them, then like Ghandi replied when he was asked what he thought of Western Civilization — “It would be nice.”

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — October 31, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

  18. Armed workers: sounds pretty good, an updating of Machiavelli on the armed citizenry. I tell people at my university that I’m faculty adviser to the Marxist Gun Club, whose central principles are firearms safety, marksmanship, and the core principles of historical materialism. And it would be good for leftists to know as much about guns as white supremacists.

    The problem is that our cities are awash in pistols and, as in most wars, what we really have is workers (and the unemployed) blowing away workers. There is no earthly reason not to outlaw handguns, assault rifles, and Barrett .50 mini-cannons tomorrow. Cockburn’s problem is that he can’t really imagine East Buffalo from the sylvan remove of Petrolia.

    Comment by Jim Holstun — October 31, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

  19. Argos was the only one that recognized him. Everyone else thought he was a random bum….

    Comment by m.c. — October 31, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

  20. Yea, Jim, that’s just the same handgun argument liberals use, but even Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” demonstrated that it’s not guns that account for all the murders in the USA, but rather social, political and historic factors, which socialist revolution could conceivably change without outlawing hand guns and assault rifles.

    Whatever the current social cost, the right to bear arms just isn’t something that Marxists should be considering giving up.

    Expropriating the expropriators will do a lot more to reduce worker on worker murders and accomplishing that expropriation might just require some assault rifles, if only to enforce new property relations.

    The truth is if just the 3/4 of a Trillion dollars Bush & Obama gave to the banks were instead divided equally amongst working & unemplyed people in the US tomorrow probably 90% of worker on worker homicide would vanish overnight without banning a single handgun or assault rifle.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — October 31, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

  21. Please save me from comrades who dream of armed workers militias violently overthrowing the government. This ain’t 1917, and the US Army isn’t the shell of the Tsarist army still functional then. Not to mention the fact that of course then as well it was a necessary condition for the success of the revolution that large parts of said Tsarist army went over.

    I don’t personally believe gun control is a central issue either way (although requiring firearms training before purchasing a gun is simple common sense, as witnessed by the high number of accidents involving guns). But pipe-dreams of armed struggle by workers and their handguns against the forces of capitalism in the US are just that – dreams. The only good thing to say about them is that those dreaming them nowadays aren’t about to put them into action and won’t manage to get workers killed.

    Comment by christian h. — October 31, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

  22. RE: workers with guns
    Why man the barricades when the King has the Bomb?
    The fantasy (that some 2nd Amendment boosters enjoy) that the arms available to civilians (basically pistols and long guns) can have any effect against the hardware wielded by a modern military is just that, a fantasy. As far as providing an extra-legal lever against tyranny, the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. I believe that an updated 2nd Amendment (assuming that it’s essentially about empowering the people and not essentially about firearms) would protect workers’ right to strike and protect their ability to strike (income, housing, health care) – in effect, a socialist amendment.
    Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is debated and interpreted as if it were written on behalf of guns themselves.

    Comment by Brian Gallagher — October 31, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

  23. Lets put all “pipe dreams” aside for a moment. Bringing up the fact that the USA is not Russia in the early 20th century and the fact that there is no Bolshevik party or a movement like the Narodniks which were actually revolutionary instead of foot soldiers for the tsar like the tea partiers.
    There is still no reason for the american folks to give their guns away and expect anything better than what they have. Gun safety is another issue.

    Comment by Michael T — October 31, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

  24. For the record I have no fantasies of “workers’ militias” storming Batista or Somoza like dungeons freeing the victims of the Bastille, even though Uncle Sam currently runs identical ones with far more efficiency and brutality.

    Instead I’m thinking more like Mike T, so you pacifists can save the sermons against wild eyed pistol wavers who ain’t afraid to dye because all I want to do is dance, and make romance.

    I suspect when Uncle Sam, whose got all the morality of that family babysitter who molests his nieces & nephews, finally rolls over dead, either by sclerotic cardiac arrest or by a wooden stake driven into his pus filled heart, hopefully sooner rather than later, the rancid ruling class will considered be such a universally despised kleptocracy that it will crumble faster than both Czarism and Stalinism combined, that is, faster than the World Trade Center — all with no shots fired.

    That doesn’t mean for a second I’d advocate, like other misguided souls here, surrendering our 2nd ammendment rights to urban liberalism’s logic, which is pure foolishness, nor should anybody else considering themselves a Marxist revolutionary be advocating gun controls against assault rifles and handguns, because, just for one example, come the inevitable counter-revolution, assault rifles may just be necessary, a la the Paris Commune, to thwart the legions from Versailles, and hand guns may just be the most efficient ticket to dispatch what may well prove to be as many as 250,000 congenitally degenerate hard core reactionary crackers that the people’s tribunals will condemn as befitting the definition of organically incorrigiable terrorists.

    Socialists are called REDS for a reason, because the blood of the workers has been spilled on our white flags of surrender more than once throughout history, and one day vengence, as organic a human emotion as love, will be ours.

    Does expropriating the expropriators require bloodshed? Absolutely not. But please comrades, lets’s not rule it out in advance.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 2:23 am

  25. Karl Friedrich, I was refering to the fact that you seem to regard some people’s writings like sacred texts

    Comment by PfromGermany — November 1, 2010 @ 11:44 am

  26. Karl, I agree that, in the fullness of time, the American ruling class will not hand over power due to gentle persuasion. Like Trotsky and Lenin, I think that this will mean communists winning over a considerable fraction of the Army and National Guard (anyone want to enlist?)

    But in the meantime, the blood of workers is being shed every fucking day: see below. The little cluster on August 14 is due to one worker with a 9mm. and a big ol’ clip deciding to bust up a wedding party of other workers he had taken a grudge to, for some reason. I wish he’d just had a knife or a stick.

    I think it would be tough to find many of the urban poor and working class who are focused primarily on the expropriation of the expropriators in the misty future, rather than the gunshots they heard last night. The Left is frequently pretty weak in its theory of crime and violence.

    “The City of Buffalo has had the following deaths ruled as homicides. Any information from the public in regards to these cases can be directed to the Buffalo Police Homicide Squad at 716.851-4466 or the Police Department’s confidential TIPCALL hotline 716.847-2255. The cases are considered active, unless indicated otherwise.

    Aaron T. James 1/1/10 Strauss Street shot
    Christopher Rudow 1/5/10 Scott Street blunt force trauma
    William Foster 1/5/10 Hudson Street stabbed
    Rick Costner, Jr. 1/16/10 Delaware Avenue shot
    Lincoln Burks 1/29/10 Cornwall Avenue TBA
    William Humphrey 2/7/10 Military Road shot
    Daniel Smalls 2/13/10 Genesee Street stabbed
    Tommy L. Wimberly 2/17/10 May Street shot
    Ramone Eady 4/1/10 Genesee St.& Hagen St. shot
    Thomas Garland Jr. 4/1/10 Fillmore Avenue shot
    Kenzel Fleming 4/6/10 Davidson Avenue shot
    Michael Cullen 4/8/10 Grider Street beaten
    Joshua Korczykowski 4/8/10 Playter Street shot
    Robert Burroughs 4/12/10 Elmwood Avenue stabbed
    Dominic Baker 4/25/10 Wick Street shot
    Rodney Cole Jr. 4/26/10 Goodyear Avenue shot
    James Velazquez 5/3/10 Busti Avenue blunt force trauma
    Jamarrion A. Keenan 5/8/10 Bailey Ave. & Kermit Ave. shot
    Anthony LoCascio 5/25/10 Elmwood Avenue stabbed
    Albert Rose 5/30/10 Amsterdam Avenue shot
    Virgil T. Page 6/5/10 19th Street shot
    Jerry Lee Davis Jr. 6/9/10 Schuele Avenue shot
    Fernando Vega 6/9/10 Schaffer Village, West Lane shot
    Jawaan Daniels 6/11/10 West Delavan & Grant St. shot
    Adrian Little 6/13/10 Clinton Street shot
    Darryl Berry 6/26/10 Auburn Ave. & Barton St. shot
    Chester Scott 7/5/10 Dodge Street stabbed
    Don Baldwin 7/17/10 Horton Place shot
    Damion Diggs 7/20/10 Walden Ave. & St.Louis Ave. shot
    Shirley Conway 7/24/10 Goodyear Avenue TBA
    Andre Worthy 7/29/10 Perry St. shot
    Michael Burgos 8/5/10 Rano St. shot
    Lawrence Bradberry Jr. 8/12/10 Durham Avenue shot
    Robert Dumas 8/14/10 Genesee & Doat shot
    Willie McCaa III 8/14/10 Main St. shot
    Danyell Mackin 8/14/10 Main St. shot
    Shawnita McNeil 8/14/10 Main St. shot
    Tiffany Wilhite 8/14/10 Main St. shot
    Ronald B. Walker 8/15/10 Cambridge near East Delavan shot
    *Spencer Cowart 8/26/10 Sattler Avenue shot
    Joseph Washington 8/28/10 Main St. and Glenwood Ave. shot
    Ahmen Lester 9/10/10 East Ferry St. & Ernst Ave shot
    **Ronald Evans 9/16/10 Chelsea Place shot
    Stanley Peete 9/17/10 Berkshire Avenue shot
    Joy Rizzo 9/22/10 Tuxedo Place
    Dominique Maye 9/30/10 Hewitt Avenue shot
    Joshua Anderson 10/7/10 Cambridge Avenue shot
    Lawrence Hairston 10/13/10 Mulberry St. shot
    Jerrell Beavers 10/14/10 Poultney Avenue shot.”

    Comment by Jim Holstun — November 1, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

  27. Karl, I am obviously not a pacifist, so don’t smear as one if you would. I merely pointed out that the right to own guns as not enshrined in the constitution is not exactly a core concern for revolutionary socialists in the US. Now kindly fuck off to your heroic fantasy land.

    Comment by christian h. — November 1, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

  28. Sorry Jim but even quadrupling those death figures the last thing I’d consider advocating is the state taking away the public’s guns.

    Yes it’s incredibly sad when there’s a slaughter at a wedding party when it’s some cowardly twisted brother in Buffalo unleashing a Tek 9 or some cowardly twisted brother in the White House unleashing a drone missisle on some unsuspecting Pakistani wedding.

    Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. It’s all the same fight and the fight won’t be any easier with unarmed workers.

    If you don’t advocate the Afghani insurgents lay down their arms then please don’t advocate it for tomorrows insurgents at home.



    Of course no texts are “sacred” but if you care about “who gets what” then it’d be very difficult to make sense of where humanity’s been and where it’s going if those 3 men had never written anything.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

  29. Christian. At no time did I call you a pacifist. At no time did I say the right to bear arms is “a core concern for revolutionary socialists in the US.” My point was simply that it’s completely alien to the tradition of socialist revolutionaries to waste their time advocating gun control when so many other gargantuan tasks confront us. Nor do I have any heroic fantasies of violence, just realistic concerns. So thanks for the insult but I won’t be fucking off anytime soon. Hope we can meet some day.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

  30. Quote: so you pacifists can save the sermons Who you talking about then – random people not engaging in the discussion on this blog? For the record, I happen to agree that socialists shouldn’t make gun control or lack thereof one of their priorities. Either way. As for heroic fantasies, thinking of workers as “tomorrow’s insurgents at home” as if the revolution will come through some kind of guerilla war is precisely that. A fantasy. And, may I say, a dangerous misreading of marxism. Then again, apologies about the insult. I’ll see you on the barricades some day, I hope :).

    Comment by christian h. — November 1, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

  31. Christian. Obviously our disagreements are few since neither of our readings of Marx suggest that he would advocate that socialist revolutionaries encourage the masses to let firearms be banned just because failing capitalism made the masses desperate and enraged at their increasing misery.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

  32. Karl,

    I’m sorry to hear that you can contemplate a quadrupling of Buffalo’s murder rate with such equanimity. You won’t find find much company on this in the city–probably more in the suburbs.

    You say that “Yes it’s incredibly sad when there’s a slaughter at a wedding party when it’s some cowardly twisted brother in Buffalo unleashing a Tek 9 or some cowardly twisted brother in the White House unleashing a drone missile on some unsuspecting Pakistani wedding.”

    I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here–that talking about the former means that one is somehow slighting the latter? That doesn’t follow.

    And while the murderer of Pakistanis by drones is, in fact, a cowardly twisted “brother,” we don’t know yet whether the Buffalo murderer was a brother (that’ll have to wait for a trial). What we do know for damned sure is that one of the dead was a black man, and three were black women. And all four wounded were black.

    But these incidents are not simply “sad,” like a lightning strike; they are vicious and oppressive–political facts born of racism, the quest for capitalist profit (by the gun lobbies, in both cases, among others), and a frantic attempt to divide workers from each other. Anyone who can wonder why black men wind up disproportionately on death row might also reasonably wonder why they also wind up disproportionately in morgues. It’s more than sad.

    On a lighter note: as a dyed-in-the-wool cracker (who also used to live in Burlington, VT), I know more about guns (including the incredible Barrett M82A1!) than my wife is comfortable with:

    Peace Activist Has To Admit Barrett .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Is Pretty Cool

    January 23, 2002 | ISSUE 38•02

    BURLINGTON, VT—Despite his staunch opposition to the National Rifle Association and U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, peace activist Paul Robinson conceded Monday that the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle is “pretty damn cool.”

    Comment by Jim Holstun — November 1, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

  33. Jim I agree with probably 99% of what you’ve said but still respectfully disgree with limiting historically oppressed people’s access to firearms of any kind. A jobs program would do a lot more to stop the slaughter than a gun ban because the gun ban in Chicago hasn’t abated a single death.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

  34. Oh come one Karl, you can do better than that. You know as well as I do that the gun ban in Chicago never had a chance to do much (I’m not sure it wasn’t nothing as there was no control group) because banning handguns in a single locale can’t work very well – witness DC where guns are imported from Virginia, or LA where they come from Nevada gun shows. This is not an argument for gun control as such, just saying the failure of local bans to have much of an impact proves nothing either way. I’ll point out again that the ruling class wouldn’t allow unchecked gun distribution the way they do if they were scared of workers with a .45. They aren’t, for good reason. They are scared of workers standing in solidarity and shutting their shiny capitalist economy down (I know you agree with that).

    Comment by christian h. — November 1, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

  35. Of course you’re right C.H. but from none of that does it automatically follow that we Unrepentant Marxists should be advocating the banning of workers from having .45 pistols? The Bill of Rights has been eroded enough under Clinton & Bush so why on earth should we, of all people, jump on the bandwagon of further eroding them? Talk about alienating the proletariat from socialism!

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

  36. See here’s the thing: a very large part, probably a significant majority, of the actual-existing US proletariat supports gun control. This is especially the case in minority communities. Contrary to what right-wingers claim, the only real proletarians are not white males who live in small towns in the middle of the country. I repeat it’s not a crucial issue or principle for socialists imo, but I’d argue we have to engage the working class as it actually is, not as the Sparts think it is. (And this is my last post on this, apologies to Louis for derailing the discussion.)

    Comment by christian h. — November 1, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

  37. You’re not “derailing” the discussion C.H. because from the outset Cockburn’s quote said maybe force isn’t necessary to overthrow Uncle Sam? Revolution by force and gun control are integral topics.

    I’ll agree that minorities probably are largely in favor of gun control and that gun control does feed into the right wing stereotype of “communist government wants to take away your guns” but I’m not willing to concede that a majority of the working class are really for gun control. Even if they were, so what? Marxists never claimed that the workers are always right. That’s just “workerism” to say that if the workers are for something then we support them. Workers often back imperialist wars and we don’t support them then. Lenin proved that workers are not always right in Russia when they continued to back the Czar’s war.

    Moreover, what if the workers were polled if they think they’d need gun control if there were full employmant, or if they could split the 3/4 Trillion TARP bailout equally — would they still need gun control then?

    We can waste all the bandwith you like on this topic but I’ll always maintain gun control advocacy is essentially anti-communist and would never be supported ideologically by any Marxist Revolutionary, living or dead, who actually participated in a Socialist Revolution.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

  38. Maybe he meant wag, ie. witty person instead of lag.

    Comment by m.c. — November 1, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

  39. My guess is that in this case “lag” is a British slang shortening of the word “laggard” meaning: “Hanging back or falling behind; dilatory.”

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 1, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

  40. You don’t have to guess. Look the phrase up, not the word, in a dictionary, for instance The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English: “chiefly Brit., inf. •…convicted and sent to prison: both old lags were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.”

    Comment by Peter Byrne — November 2, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

  41. Too bad that dictionary only uses “lags” in a sentance but doesn’t tell us exactly what a “lag” is, except that they tend to be old?

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 2, 2010 @ 11:57 pm

  42. Hey, it wasn’t a “complement,” but a “compliment.” A nice “complement” would have been a side of fries with the baloney.

    Comment by Martin — November 3, 2010 @ 1:15 am

  43. Actually, considering the fact that my style is based on reading Alexander for the past 30 years or so, it might be accurate to describe it as a complement even though I should have used the word “compliment”.

    Comment by louisproyect — November 3, 2010 @ 1:28 am

  44. Good catch Martin. I wonder whose working on a spell checker that checks context?

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — November 3, 2010 @ 1:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: