Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

March 7, 2011

Diana Johnstone, Qaddafi, and the dangers of rote thinking

Filed under: Libya — louisproyect @ 6:22 pm

Diana Johnstone

As someone who was a fairly high-profile defender of Milosevic during the war in Kosovo, I might have been expected to apply the same “formula” to other subsequent “color revolutions” as has been the case with Michel Chossudovsky’s Global Research website, MRZine, the Marcyite sects, et al. Perhaps my close proximity at one time to Jared Israel served to inoculate me against such susceptibility. After seeing him “evolve” first into a rabid defender of Putin and other such former Soviet bloc thugs, then a 9/11 Truther (a function of his pre-existing Islamophobia and a belief that the CIA orchestrates everything), and then finally into a hardened Likudite who supported Israel’s war on Gaza, I took a deep breath and said that something more nuanced was needed. You can’t simply put a minus where the ruling class puts a plus.

It also bothered me that many of the “anti-imperialists” took up the cause of Robert Mugabe. Because he was being demonized in the liberal press and because he was a leader of the guerrilla struggle for national independence, that was all that they needed to know. If ISO members in Zimbabwe were being arrested, that was acceptable to some. A kind of crude amalgam was made between these revolutionary socialists and the MDC that they participated in for a time. Because Soros donated money to the MDC, then the entire struggle against Mugabe was tarnished. This kind of “if, then” logic is what you might see in a textbook on formal logic and arguably belongs there.

But things really came to a head with Iran. As someone who followed events closely in the early 80s when Khomeini cracked down on the left, even putting his opponents in Evin prison—the same charnel house run by the Shah, I could not buy into the realignment being pushed by MRZine. Indeed, from what I could gather from this sorry online publication, the crackdown on the left was a pretty good thing. If you were familiar with the CPUSA’s defense of the Moscow Trials, you could understand why MRZine would be so anxious to see the “wreckers and splitters” in Iran destroyed.

The latest and most boneheaded example of rote thinking can be found of course in the defense of Qaddafi. This takes either explicit forms such as Chossudovsky publishing an article that stated “People in Libya were rich” or more often an implicit defense on the basis that he was a lesser evil compared to the uprising. Unlike Egypt or Tunisia, the opposition was stigmatized as  CIA-inspired even though the same kinds of imperialist connections could be found in the movement against Mubarak and Ben Ali. Qaddafi was given a pass because, like Mugabe, he was a fighter for national independence decades ago. But as a British playwright once put it: “…that was in another country; And besides, the wench is dead.”

The latest example of rote thinking can be found in today’s Counterpunch. Diana Johnstone, a highly respected (at least in some quarters) specialist on Yugoslavia, has written an article titled “Another NATO Intervention? Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?“. It is a mixture of reasonable anti-imperialist logic plus some of the same nonsense that can be found in all the usual places.

The worst thing about it is that it sweeps the period from 2004 until the February 2011 uprising under the rug. Johnstone claims that Qaddafi has been demonized like Milosevic:

As “the new Hitler”, the man you love to hate and need to destroy, Slobodan Milosevic was a neophyte in 1999 compared to Muammar Qaddafi today.  The media had less than a decade to turn Milosevic into a monster, whereas with Qaddafi, they’ve been at it for several decades.  And Qaddafi is more exotic, speaking less English and coming before the public in outfits that could have been created by John Galliano (another recently outed monster).

If she had been following newspaper coverage on Libya with the same assiduousness as she covered Yugoslavia, she would have not written such nonsense. To start off with, Condoleezza Rice met with Qaddafi in 2008 and said “The relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now, and I think tonight does mark a new phase.” To show how touched he was with his new best friend, Qaddafi showered $212,000 in gifts on her, including a diamond ring and a locket with his own picture inside. If people like Michel Chossudovsky and Diana Johnstone had a better feel for history, none of this would be much of a surprise. Rice’s visit to Libya was virtually the same as Nixon and Kissinger’s to China. It marked a new relationship based on the solid realities of commodity exchange. Qaddafi had come to the conclusion that Western imperialism would be a good partner in oil production in the same fashion as it was in Saudi Arabia or Iraq today. The real analogy was not between Qaddafi and Milosevic but between Qaddafi and Vojislav Kostunica, the neoliberal politician who was determined to realign Serbia as a maquila zone economically and a friend of NATO politically.

Johnstone is particularly upset with the left for joining in the “demonization” of Qaddafi, especially an unnamed Trotskyist group that stated: “Of all the crimes of Qaddafi, the one that is without doubt the most grave and least known is his complicity with the EU migration policy…” She says that “This is a left that ends up, out of sheer confusion, as cheerleader for war.” Unfortunately, she does not provide a citation for this so I am not sure which group it is that I would like to solidarize with. Unlike her, I think this is exactly what should make the left understand that Qaddafi is our enemy.

As my readers should know by now, MRZine and Black Agenda Report have failed to do their due diligence on the question of racism in Libya, claiming falsely that the uprising that began last month ushered in a new phenomenon, namely racist pogroms against Black African workers in Libya. In reality, this is a long-standing problem that existed under Qaddafi, something that Johnstone alluded to but belittled in her commentary. She acknowledges that detention camps for immigrant workers existed but faulted the left for singling that out as a sign that Qaddafi was in league with imperialists, especially his friend the racist Berlusconi who sought to keep Blacks out of Italy. Here’s just one report on the love-fest between the great Pan-Africanist and the right-wing Italian sexist pig:

The European Union is keen to strike a pact with Muammar Gaddafi to stem the flow of immigrants across the Mediterranean, officials said today, after the Libyan leader put a price tag of €5bn (£4.1bn) a year on the deal.

“There is great scope to develop cooperation with Libya on migration,” said Matthew Newman, a commission spokesman. Other officials said three negotiating sessions were expected by the end of the year between Brussels and Tripoli as well as the staging of a summit of EU and African leaders in Libya in November.

In a highly theatrical visit to Italy this week, Gaddafi warned that Europe would turn “black” unless it was more rigorous in turning back immigrants. Libya is a key transit point for illegal migration from Africa to Europe. The Libyan leader said the bill for sealing the crossing routes would be at least €5bn a year.

Get that, comrades? Qaddafi warned that Europe would turn “black”. And this fucking (excuse my language) comprador despot is someone who gets the red carpet treatment in Venezuela. As much as I admire Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, this is not something they got right. And the longer they persist in obfuscating things, the worse it will be for them.

The struggle in the Arab world is for democratic rights. That trumps any diplomatic deal struck between Venezuela and Libya. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first came into prominence as activists in the revolutionary upsurge of 1848 that sought to abolish feudal despotism. The ground had to be cleared for battles between the working class and the bourgeoisie. To hasten that showdown it was necessary to fight for a democratic republic with full rights for working people, including the right to form trade unions, to vote and to assemble peacefully. That is exactly the same kinds of battles taking place in the Arab world today and those on the left who oppose it through malicious propaganda are serving the counter-revolution.

22 Comments »

  1. You wrote: “Johnstone is particularly upset with the left for its refusal to hoist Qaddafi on its shoulders, especially an unnamed Trotskyist group that stated: “Of all the crimes of Qaddafi, the one that is without doubt the most grave and least known is his complicity with the EU migration policy…” Unfortunately, she does not provide a citation for this so I am not sure which group it is that I would like to solidarize with.”

    The sentence Johnstone quotes can be found here:http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article20486. The article was translated into French from Spanish, published on the Belgian Trotskyists’ website, then reproduced by the NPA in France.

    Comment by Richard Fidler — March 7, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

  2. Further to comment 1. Info on the authors can be found on the website of the English translator, Machatera, at http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=4011. Click on the URL under the lead author’s name and you will find that he is an outstanding Spanish Marxist, who may or may not be a “Trotskyist”. He has been living in the Arab world for the last 19 years. The article is an effective appeal to revolutionaries in Latin America to solidarize with the insurgents in Libya. And while justifiably attacking Ortega on this, he does not fall into the trap of misrepresenting the positions of Castro and Chávez, as you tend to do in your blog item above.

    Comment by Richard Fidler — March 7, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

  3. You wrote: “Johnstone is particularly upset with the left for its refusal to hoist Qaddafi on its shoulders…” That conclusion doesn’t seem warranted by what she actually said. Nor did your excursus on Condoleeza Rica and Qaddafi disprove her assertion that imperialism has been demonizing Qaddafi for a much longer time than it did Milosevic. Nor do I think Johnstone’s analysis puts her in the amalgam you make of various left bugbears of yours. Qaddafi is a loony tune (proven by his idiotic claim that the rebels are getting hallucinogenic drugs from Al Qaeda, if nothing else), but that doesn’t detract from the bigger danger of imperialist “humanitarian” intervention in Libya as has happened elsewhere (e.g., using the oppression of women to justify its invasion of Afghanistan). Most leftists writing about Libya don’t seem well informed enough to draw lines in the sand for one side or the other. But maybe those who see a progressive revolution happening in the eastern part of the country can explain where all those monarchist flags came from so quickly. At least Johnstone avoided knee-jerk Manichaeanism, which some leftists on both sides of the Libya rebellion fall into. Neither Qaddafi nor his opponents look very appealing, and the imperialist saber rattling Johnstone pointed to looms as the greater threat. Hopefully, the imperialists are spread too thin to do as much damage in Libya as they would like to.

    Comment by David Thorstad — March 7, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

  4. Nor did your excursus on Condoleeza Rica and Qaddafi disprove her assertion that imperialism has been demonizing Qaddafi for a much longer time than it did Milosevic. Nor do I think Johnstone’s analysis puts her in the amalgam you make of various left bugbears of yours.

    Everybody understands that Qaddafi was demonized before 2004. But she brackets out everything that has taken place between 2004 and February 2011 when Libyans rose up against dictatorship, neoliberalism and pretty much the same things that pissed off Tunisians and Egyptians. I didn’t mention this in my article but her characterization of the opposition as a mixture of Islamists and neoliberal modernizers is exactly the same kind of reductionism that can be applied to Egypt.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 7, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

  5. Keep hitting. It will break through eventually, man.

    Comment by Michael Hureaux — March 7, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

  6. Louis,

    Excellent article. Thanks for the good thinking and indefatigable work. The unfolding Arab revolution doesn’t seem to count for much in Johnstone’s thinking but to me it is the whole ballgame.

    David

    Comment by davidbyrnemcdonaldiii — March 7, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

  7. The “struggle in the Arab world” is not simply for democratic rights; it’s also about civil rights and all kinds of “bread and butter” issues – about poverty, unemployment, jobs, social services etc. Point is that we don’t live in Libya ourselves, and we should be concerned in the first instance with what the stance of our own state is.

    Comment by Jurriaan Bendien — March 7, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

  8. I agree completely with Jurriaan’s comment. I was remiss in not pointing this out. This is a struggle for democratic rights and against economic hardship.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 7, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

  9. yes, it will eventually break through

    and, as I posted over at American Leftist, as an extension of your analysis here, the damage may have already been done when it comes to Chavez and Gaddafi:

    http://amleft.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html#6294000551516621171

    if not, it will only get worse, as you say, to the detriment of the left globally

    the oddest thing I find about this situation is the insistence upon some to characterize Gaddafi as something he isn’t, an anti-imperialist opponent of the US and Europe in the face of so much evidence to the contrary

    I’m not sure that it is the Arab revolution is the “whole ballgame” as stated by David, but it could be pretty close, especially in regard to the possible emergence of a coalition of both wage laborers and wageless ones in the informal sector against the harshness of neoliberalism

    Comment by Richard Estes — March 7, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

  10. This appears to be the profile which RF was mentioning above. I agree that it doesn’t identify him as “Trotskyist” in any way:

    http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/biographie.asp?ref_aut=104&lg_pp=en

    Santiago Alba Rico

    The Spanish philosopher and writer Santiago Alba Rico is a graduate of Madrid’s Complutense University. Between 1984 and 1988 he was one of the screenwriters of a mythical anti-capitalist TV program for children – La bola de cristal – which helped to create in Spain the so called “Bruja Avería left wing generation.” The program was later eradicated from the airwaves by Felipe González’s “socialist” party. Alba Rico’s experiences on this program were later published on two books: Viva el mal, viva el capital andViva la economía, viva la CIA.

    He has written numerous anthropology, philosophy and political essays: Dejar de pensar (Akal), Volver a pensar (Akal), Las reglas del caos (Anagrama), Ciudad intangible (Hiru), El islam jacobino (Hiru), Torres más altas o Vendrá la realidad y nos encontrará dormidos (partes de guerra y prosas de resistencia (Hiru). For the last nineteen years he has lived in the Arab world. He has translated the Egyptian poet Naguib Surur (Cantarabia 1990) and the Iraqi writer Mohamed Judayr (Hiru 2004) into Spanish. He is a longtime collaborator at the Spanish-language left-wing media http://www.rebelion.org.

    Santiago Alba Rico is one of the most lucid Marxist thinkers in today’s Spain.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — March 7, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  11. I think the fact that Diana Johnstone can lash out at Santiago Alba Rico like this says more about her than him.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 7, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

  12. Just sent to Ms. Johnstone, with some minor typo corrections: Re: Libya: Is This Kosovo All Over Again?

    The title of the article neatly sums up where the real leftist idiocy lies. An arbitrary differentiation of the present Libyan situation is made from that at present in Egypt, in order to make a context-free identification with Kosovo and the situation in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. But the two situations are profoundly different for one simple, but enormously important, reason: The Kosovo war came at the tail end of a *counter-revolutionary* process that resulted in the re-integration of much of the ex-Soviet bloc into the imperialist system; The present Libyan events are an integral part of of a pan-Arab democratic *revolutionary* process that, occurring as it is in an area of the world designated by the United States itself as its number one top strategic priority, holds great promise for delivering an equally strategic blow to its global hegemony. That is true even if the revolutionary process remains within democratic bounds, for even democratic revolution here will also include an end to subservience to the United States and Europe, and therefore an end to collaboration with Israel, and possibly even the downfall of the Saudi monarchy, the most medieval, backward regime on Earth. So the “Chavez group” proposes to earn the enmity of the Arab people and throw this all away for the sake of Gadaffi? Do we really have to repeat the mistakes of the Iraqi Communist Party, or of the Iranian Tudeh?

    And speaking of a “narrow vision”, blind to a revolution occurring right under ones’ nose, Gaddafi’s biggest sin is not standing down when clearly faced with the deep hatred for his regime by the substantial majority of his own people. By not standing down, the Gaddafi family bears the *primary* responsibility for creating an opening for an imperialist intervention. But the “Chavez group” does not call either for the Gaddafi family to stand down, or for their ouster, an act that would close this opening. Why not? This question is not addressed at all. To say it is not our business is, again, to ignore the Arab revolution happening right under our noses.

    As for imperialist intervention, the “far left” (where does that put the Chavez group? The “left” mishmash quoted below is not even worth commenting upon, as it is a completely dishonest formulation) is unalterably opposed to intervention in any form, under any pretext. In my case, these are not empty words; during the Kosovo situation I put my job and reputation at risk by openly and consistently arguing against the NATO intervention at my workplace (I live in the USA); I lost some friends and made some enemies, but I gained a few friends as well. And that was a situation much more difficult to argue with than the one we are presented with now, where once again I am prepared to argue against intervention with anyone I meet with in my daily life – starting with the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi, with whom I argued precisely this point in regards to “no-fly zones” in a (friendly) conversation at a rally they held recently here in the USA. Now, after the evidence Iraq and Afghanistan presents us, it is a much easier task to point out that many more will die as a result of intervention.

    So excuse me if I point out that I am not a “cheerleader for war”, that this so-called “accusation” generates nothing but a bottomless hatred towards those from whom such dishonest statements issue. The fate of the Arab revolution is what we call a “blood line”, and you all need to watch your step and be careful what you write and say on this one, Ms. Johnstone.

    Most Sincerely,
    Matt Russo

    [Comment for this website]: I understand there are internal nuances contained with the “Chavez group” on this issue. I eagerly await Chavez making good on his word to act as a mediator for Libya (which I totally support) and actually *contact* the anti-Gaddafi Libyans with Venezuelan diplomacy. No evidence yet of that.

    I deliberately did not correct the omission of “by the Libyan masses” after “ouster of the Gaddafi family”. I know how the sect brain works – like clockwork, it is extremely predictable (these guys could be easily ambushed in an actual battle, it is not even funny – could you see these people “leading” a revolution? Oh but wait, they wouldn’t even notice a revolution was going on!) Pretending not to see the real content, they parse every detail looking for a loophole, so they can then turn and arrogantly condescend to lecture upon “anti-imperialism”, as if the whole world doesn’t know that a revolution is in process in the Arab World!

    I have become very angry about this nonsense for a very simple reason: the anti-imperialist socialist and communist Left was disgraced and dishonored once in the eyes of the Arab masses by precisely this kind of *counter-revolutionary* thinking (ever notice that while “anti-imperialism” rolls easily off the tongue, “revolution and counter-revolution” does not? Marx and Lenin were revolutionaries long before they were anti-imperialists). Let’s not allow that to happen again!

    In the final analysis I don’t give a flying eff about all the nuances: You are either with the Arab Revolution – with all its limitations that we must push to overcome – or you are (objectively) against it. Choose which side of the blood line you are on. That revolution is deepening every day as we read and write.

    Comment by Matt Russo — March 7, 2011 @ 9:06 pm

  13. Razor-sharp analysis from Louis and also from Matt Russo above. This is a breath of fresh air, as I was looking for an outlet to vent my frustration at Chossudovsky’s formulaic conspiracy theorizing on the Arab revolution. But the last thing i imagined was that Diana Johnstone would join this off-key chorus. Yes, there are questions to be raised about the flags, & the apparently spontaneous organisation and rapid success of Libya’s rebels, but none of these question marks are sufficient to doubt the essentially autochtonous nature of this rebellion. All of the countries affected so far in the Arab spring have been firmly within the US-EU orbit. Aside from the question of any possible motive, the idea that the US could even orchestrate the whole thing just doesn’t hold water. This formulaic thinking pays scant attention to the micropolitics of the countries affected, and apparently no attention to the exact sequence of events, starting with Tunisia and spreading by example. Or was Mohamed Bouazizi, when he set himself on fire, also a CIA agent?

    Louis, if i were the type to have idols, you’d be my latest. Thanks so much for this post!

    Comment by david montoute — March 7, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

  14. Well I have made my position clear on Lou’s Marxism list and that is that I agree with Lou. Events though in Libya are moving quickly and it may well happen that Gadaffi will survive. I have said repeatedly that such an outcome would gladden the heart of all the rich and the powerful even those who are pushing for military intervention. The anti-Intervention forces led by Gates and the pro-intervention forces, led by Clinton, would kiss and make up.

    The other Arab tyrants would have a model for crushing the revolt – money + mercs + slaughter.

    What though about Intervention? Of course I oppose that totally just as I did the intervention by the Australian Army in East Timor. But it is a serious possibility. For the imperialists the optimum timing of an intervention would be when both sides in Libya are exhausted and unable to mount resistance.

    That may well be Gaddaffi’s last service to Imperialism.

    But none of that means that we have a right to expect the people of Libya and elsewhere in the region to live in misery under a mad dog. They have put their lives on the line and we should be whole heartedly with them.

    comradely

    Gary

    Comment by Gary MacLennan — March 7, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

  15. “A kind of crude amalgam was made between these revolutionary socialists and the MDC that they participated in for a time. Because Soros donated money to the MDC, then the entire struggle against Mugabe was tarnished. This kind of “if, then” logic is what you might see in a textbook on formal logic and arguably belongs there.”

    Can I just say about the MDC that what you may have heard from Gowans, technically, it started as a rather progressive party, it wasn’t a CIA setup from the outset, even Andy Newman says so.

    Comment by Jenny — March 8, 2011 @ 12:07 am

  16. Lou concludes his piece: “The struggle in the Arab world is for democratic rights.”

    Nope. It’s about the material conditions faced by people in MENA. It’s first about “bread and butter” as Jurriaan Bendien put it. Then it’s about the dignity of workers — independent unions, collective rights, inequalities, etc. — that has much to do with bread and butter. Getting there requires the fall of the status quo first. Let’s not confuse correlation and causation.

    Regarding Libya, it seems to me that what’s missing in most analysis, including Lou’s, is the tribal component of the violent struggle. Get back to the Ottomans and check the three biggest provinces within what is now the Libyan state. They were dominated by potent tribes, and over 140 sub-tribes. Some kind of tribalism is at play here.

    I think none of us (which includes me) has a clear understanding of the forces at play and the full picture.

    Regarding the “imperialist” (what an oxymoron…), it would be useful to carefully consider the US cables (cf. WikiLeaks) that were pretty much on target describing sclerotic leadership of regimes long supported by the US and the EU, and the potential social upheavals in those countries. Why did the US choose to change its script (Obama’s speech in Cairo, H. Clinton’s repeated calls for reforms)? I’ll submit that the US gov. reached the conclusion that change was in the making, but the upheaval could not be predicted with certainty. The moment it happened, the US, albeit reluctantly, jumped on the bandwagon in order, as always, to control the process. It’s about oil and geostrategy (read China). Saudi Arabia, of course, will be the final test… Will the US manage transition there?

    Maybe I am being cynical, but please forget about “democratic” rights. It’s bread and butter on their part, and bread and butter on our (Western) part. That is, it’s about class and power — the sharing of wealth (or scarcity) between the many and the few.

    In fine, I would not throw the baby with the bath water as far as Diana Johnstone is concerned. Her analysis are more often correct than not (even though I do disagree with her take on Islamists).

    Good piece, Lou. Keep class in mind.

    Best,
    Gilles

    Comment by Gilles d'Aymery — March 8, 2011 @ 12:10 am

  17. Besides the “put the X where imperialism puts an O argument, there is another good argument. It starts as, “If I’m worker in Zimbabwe, what is best for me?”

    Comment by Renegade Eye — March 8, 2011 @ 1:29 am

  18. What about Gaddafi’s racism against Berbers? Is racism against Berbers, an African people, “pan-Africanism”?

    Comment by ProletarianRenegade — March 8, 2011 @ 2:41 am

  19. LOUIS PROYECT>>

    Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first came into prominence as activists in the revolutionary upsurge of 1848 that sought to abolish feudal despotism. The ground had to be cleared for battles between the working class and the bourgeoisie. To hasten that showdown it was necessary to fight for a democratic republic with full rights for working people, including the right to form trade unions, to vote and to assemble peacefully. That is exactly the same kinds of battles taking place in the Arab world today and those on the left who oppose it through malicious propaganda are serving the counter-revolution.

    QUITE RIGHT! But the moot point is: Is that going to happen? Most certainly not! Probably not!

    What is perhaps & the indications are there already is going to happen is: another Kosovo.

    Manu Kant

    Comment by Manu Kant — March 8, 2011 @ 11:34 am

  20. “The struggle in the Arab world is for democratic rights.” What is the outcome of the democratic revolution? A parliament and a bourgeois state. Will it be free from the pressures of imperialism? Hell no. Why have all democratic revolutions failed since the 1840s in Europe. Read Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. The time of democratic revolutions has come and gone for quite awhile, but since Proyect is hell bent on revising Marxism he revives the era of bourgeois revolutions.

    Comment by lextheimpaler — March 8, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

  21. […] deur naar een diplomatieke deal, zitten er stevig naast. Louis Proyect zet er in het ene na het andere stuk   terecht genadeloos het mes in. Maar ik ben wel tegen zulke interventie gekant, juist omdát […]

    Pingback by Tegen militaire interventie in Libië – solidariteit met de opstandigen « Rooieravotr — March 10, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

  22. This posting seems very sensible and balanced, making the point that one can oppose the current NATO adventure against Libya, without apologizing for Gaddafi’s undeniable ugliness.

    Comment by David Gibbs — April 3, 2011 @ 11:28 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 )

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: