Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

March 12, 2019

The Boeing 737 Max 8: a case-study in uncreative destruction

Filed under: computers,disasters,economics,unemployment,workers — louisproyect @ 6:26 pm

Wreckage at the scene of an Ethiopian Airlines crash near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Monday. (AP Photo/Mulugeta Ayene)

On October 29, 2018, a Boeing 737 Max 8 belonging to Lion Air in Indonesia crashed into the Java Sea 12 minutes after take-off. All 189 passengers and crew members were killed instantly. It is extremely unusual for planes to suffer such accidents in clear weather after having reached their cruising altitude. Flight experts concluded that the pilots were not adequately trained in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a robotics technology that lowers the nose of a plane to prevent a stall. Although there is no definitive judgement on exactly what happened, it appears to be a combination of inadequate training for the pilots and a malfunctioning MCAS.

On Sunday, another 737 Max 8 owned by Ethiopian Airlines had the same kind of accident resulting in the death of 157 passengers and crew members. In the aftermath of the tragedy, this has led to Australia, China, Germany, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom grounding the planes.

Looking at these two horrible tragedies that will make me think twice about getting on a plane again, I keep thinking of the title of Gabriel Garcia Márquez’s classic “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”. In essence, the use of MCAS is akin to an experimental, driverless car owned by Uber killing a pedestrian who was jaywalking on a dark road in Tempe, Arizona on May 18, 2018. The back-up driver, who was supposed to keep a sharp eye on the road to prevent such an accident, was watching reruns of the reality TV show “The Voice” at the time.

Despite such incidents (there have been 4 fatalities already), the bourgeoisie is determined to push ahead since the savings in labor costs will make up for the collateral damage of dead pedestrians. While I am skeptical that completely driverless cars will ever become the norm for Uber or Lyft, I can see people with little driving experience being paid minimum wage just to be a back-up to the computer system—as long as they don’t watch TV on the job. (Fat chance with such a boring job.)

This morning Donald Trump tweeted about the airline crash. “Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are….”

To begin with, the issue is not planes becoming too complex. It is rather that they are becoming too simple in terms of the amount of deskilling the airlines favor. As for the issue of replacing human labor with robots, he is all for it—reflecting the priorities of a ruling class bent on driving down wages.

In a US News and World Report article titled “The Race Is On After Feds Pave Way for Driverless Trucks”, we learn:

The most optimistic analysts project that trucks with empty cabs and a computer at the wheel will travel on U.S. highways in as little as two years with no escort or safety driver in sight now that the Trump administration has signaled its willingness to let tractor-trailers to become truly driverless.

The U.S. Department of Transportation this month announced that it will “no longer assume” that the driver of a commercial truck is human, and the agency will even “adapt the definitions of ‘driver’ and ‘operator’ to recognize that such terms do not refer exclusively to a human, but may in fact include an automated system.”

Already, automated truck developers such as Embark and TuSimple have made freight deliveries where the computer takes control on the highway, overseen by a human “safety driver.” Companies have also successfully tested “platooning,” where a truck with a human driver leads a convoy of as many as five computer-driven trucks following at close distance to reduce drag and save fuel.

The technologies promise big savings, with driverless trucks potentially slashing 40 percent from the cost of long-haul freight – much of it in saved labor expenses – and platooning cutting 10 to 15 percent in fuel costs.

If it is good for cars and trucks, why not airplanes?

Two years before the Indonesian 737 crash, the Guardian published an article titled “Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster” that it clearly anticipated. Interestingly enough, it was not even a Boeing plane that was discussed in the article. It was an Airbus 330 that had the same kind of systems as the Boeing NCAS. With pilots much more used to relying on automation than manual control of the plane, they failed to override the system that was forcing the plane to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1, 2009 at about 125 miles an hour. Everyone on board, 228 passengers and crew, died instantly.

While pilots flying to major airports will continue to be highly paid, the wages of those working for regional airlines has fallen drastically. In 2010, the Guardian reported on “A pilot’s life: exhausting hours for meagre wages”. They lead a decidedly unglamorous life:

Many are forced to fly half way around the country before they even begin work. Others sleep in trailers at the back of Los Angeles airport, in airline lounges across the country or even on the floors of their own planes. Some co-pilots, who typically take home about $20,000 (£12,500) a year, hold down second jobs to make ends meet.

All that will change when airplanes go the route of driverless cars as the NY Times reported last July in an article titled “Are You Ready to Fly Without a Human Pilot?” In the same fashion that Trump backed driverless trucks, the move toward pilotless planes seems inexorable:

Regulators are already taking steps toward downsizing the role of humans on the flight deck. The bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration included language to provide funding to study single-pilot operations for cargo planes, a move that the Air Line Pilots Association opposed. Captain Canoll said that a single-pilot aircraft must be safe to fly without anyone at the controls in case the pilot takes a bathroom break or becomes incapacitated.

At the recently concluded World Economic Forum, there was a big focus on artificial intelligence and robotics. On the website, you can find breathless articles about “Meet Stan: the robot valet that parks your car at the airport” and “US companies created a record number of robot workers in 2018”. In a Washington Post article on the WEF, the title betrayed a certain unease about the replacement of human beings by robots: The aristocrats are out of touch’: Davos elites believe the answer to inequality is ‘upskilling’. It cited Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman about how to keep the masses docile: “The lack of education in those areas in digital is absolutely shocking. That has to be changed. That will very much lessen the inequalities that people have in terms of job opportunities.”

What world are these people living in? Schwarzman has a 32-room penthouse in 740 Park Avenue and spent $5 million for his birthday party in 2017. He just made a gift of $1 billion to MIT to launch a new school for Artificial Intelligence. Is that supposed to create jobs? Maybe for someone with an MIT degree who will go to work writing software to replace the people working for Jeff Bezos’s slave labor-like warehouses with machines but what is someone out of a job at an Amazon warehouse then supposed to do? Apply to MIT?

The handwriting is on the wall. The USA is moving into a two-tiered system. In places like NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, you get people working in high-tech industries that in contrast to the Fordist model of the 1930s employ far fewer bodies. Meanwhile, in Detroit, Cleveland, and other places where Fordism once held sway, the jobs are there if you are willing to work at Walmarts, at local hospitals emptying bedpans or as guards in a jail or prison. Class divisions between those with advanced technology skills and those left out will only increase, leading to the kind of showdown taking place in France between the neoliberal state and the Yellow Vests.

You get a feel for the Two Americas reading a March 7th NY Times article titled “Thousands of New Millionaires Are About to Eat San Francisco Alive”:

In cities like Oakland and Berkeley and San Francisco, millennials obsess over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter and attend Democratic Socialists of America meetings. But the socialist passion doesn’t seem to have impacted the city’s zeal for I.P.O. parties, which the party planning community says are going to surpass past booms.

Jay Siegan, a former live music club owner who now curates private entertainment and music, is gearing up. He has worked on events for many of the I.P.O. hopefuls, including Uber, Airbnb, Slack, Postmates and Lyft.

“We see multiple parties per I.P.O. for the company that is I.P.O.ing, as well as firms that are associated to them,” Mr. Siegan said. Budgets for start-up parties, he said, can easily go above $10 million. “They’re wanting to bring in A-list celebrities to perform at the dinner tables for the executives. They want ballet performers.”

The only comment I would add to this tale of two cities is that it would not be surprising if some of these high-flying technology workers might also plan to vote for Bernie Sanders. They probably don’t feel happy about living in a city where their wealth has driven up the cost of housing to the point that homelessness is an epidemic. Whether President Sanders can do much about these class divisions is open to debate.

The replacement of human labor by machinery has been described as “creative destruction”. The assumption is that the temporary pain is worth it since there will always be the growth of new jobs. As my seventh grade social studies put it, the invention of the automobile put the blacksmith out of work but it created far more jobs in a Ford plant.

On May 12, 2010, the New York Times ran an article by economics editor Catherine Rampell titled The New Poor: In Job Market Shift, Some Workers Are Left Behind that focused on the largely middle-aged unemployed who will probably never work again. For example, 52 year old administrative assistant Cynthia Norton has been working part-time at Walmart while sending resumes everywhere but nobody gets back to her. She is part of a much bigger picture:

Ms. Norton is one of 1.7 million Americans who were employed in clerical and administrative positions when the recession began, but were no longer working in that occupation by the end of last year. There have also been outsize job losses in other occupation categories that seem unlikely to be revived during the economic recovery. The number of printing machine operators, for example, was nearly halved from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009. The number of people employed as travel agents fell by 40 percent.

But Ms. Rampell finds the silver lining in this dark cloud:

This “creative destruction” in the job market can benefit the economy.

Pruning relatively less-efficient employees like clerks and travel agents, whose work can be done more cheaply by computers or workers abroad, makes American businesses more efficient. Year over year, productivity growth was at its highest level in over 50 years last quarter, pushing corporate profits to record highs and helping the economy grow.

The term “creative destruction” might ring a bell. It was coined by Werner Sombart in his 1913 book “War and Capitalism”. When he was young, Sombart considered himself a Marxist. His notion of creative destruction was obviously drawn from Karl Marx, who, according to some, saw capitalism in terms of the business cycle. With busts following booms, like night follows day, a new round of capital accumulation can begin. This interpretation is particularly associated with Volume Two of Capital that examines this process in great detail. Looking at this material, some Marxists like Eduard Bernstein drew the conclusion that capitalism is an infinitely self-sustaining system.

By 1913, Sombart had dumped the Marxist commitment to social revolution but still retained the idea that there was a basis in Karl Marx for upholding the need for “creative destruction”, a view buttressed by an overly positive interpretation of this passage in the Communist Manifesto:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.

By the 1930s, Sombart had adapted himself fairly well to the Nazi system although he was not gung-ho like Martin Heidegger or Carl Schmitt. The wiki on Sombart notes:

In 1934 he published Deutscher Sozialismus where he claimed a “new spirit” was beginning to “rule mankind”. The age of capitalism and proletarian socialism was over and with “German socialism” (National-Socialism) taking over.

But despite this, he remained critical. In 1938 he wrote an anthropology text that found fault with the Nazi system and many of his Jewish students remained fond of him.

I suspect, however, that Rampell is familiar with Joseph Schumpeter’s use of the term rather than Sombart since Schumpeter was an economist, her chosen discipline. In 1942, he wrote a book titled Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that, like Sombart, retained much of Karl Marx’s methodology but without the political imperative to destroy the system that utilized “creative destruction”. He wrote:

The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation–if I may use that biological term–that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in. . . .

The wiki on Schumpeter claims that this theory is wedded to Nikolai Kondratiev’s “long wave” hypothesis that rests on the idea that there are 50 year cycles in which capitalism grows, decays and enters a crisis until a new round of capital accumulation opens up. Not only was the idea attractive to Schumpeter, it was a key part of Ernest Mandel’s economic theories. Unlike Schumpeter, Mandel was on the lookout for social agencies that could break the cycle and put development on a new footing, one based on human need rather than private profit.

Returning to Rampell’s article, there is one dimension entirely missing. She assumes that “creative destruction” will operate once again in order to foster a new upswing in the capitalist business cycle. But how exactly will that manifest itself? All the signs point to a general decline in business activity unless there is some kind of technological breakthrough equivalent to the computer revolution that fueled growth for decades. Does anybody believe that “green manufacturing” will play the same role? I don’t myself.

One thing does occur to me. Sombart’s book was written in 1913, one year before WWI and was even titled eerily enough “War and Capitalism”. One wonders if the Great War would be seen as part and parcel of “creative destruction”. War, after all, does have a knack for clearing the playing field with even more finality than layoffs. Schumpeter wrote his book in 1942, one year into WWII. My guess is that he did not theorize war as the ultimate (and necessary?) instrument of creative destruction but history will record that WWII did introduce a whole rafter of new technology, including aluminum, radar, nuclear power, etc., while bombing old modes of production into oblivion. What a great opportunity it was for capitalism to rebuild Japan, especially after firebombing and atomic bombs did their lovely work.

In my view, there’s something disgusting about this “creative destruction” business especially when it is articulated by a young, pro-capitalist Princeton graduate like Catherine Rampell who wrote for Slate, the Village Voice and other such b-list publications before crawling her way up into an editorial job at the NYT. She clearly has learned how to cater her reporting to the ideological needs of the newspaper of record, growing more and more reactionary as the crisis of capitalism deepens.

11 Comments »

  1. Is the future of work itself at issue? Where will capitalism go if the actual cost of human labor becomes insignificant relative to the fixed costs of AI and robotics operating the machinery? Apart from the question of surplus value, who will buy all the shit that’s produced?

    I suppose a partial extinction event would be one destructive consequence–millions dying while the Trumps of the world riot in luxury behind their airlocks–but how could that ever become creative? Maybe the result will be a smaller human population supported by a robot slave economy, with a few beleaguered proles groveling around the bases of the monuments … . More like the ancient world than modern capitalism … .

    These are insanely naive questions and I guess rather stupid–but WTF?

    As far as the capitalists themselves are concerned, fantasies of opulent autonomy behind impenetrable gates may have a lot of appeal. Just look at all the “libertarian” “sovereign” assholes who dream of having their own Thorium MSRs (free energy) and “Thorium cars” (not real, but who cares) while paying for stuff thru Bitcoin in the absence of government … . Well, I think there are people like that … .

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — March 12, 2019 @ 6:59 pm

  2. […] Source: The Boeing 737 Max 8: a case-study in non-creative destruction | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marx… […]

    Pingback by The Boeing 737 Max 8: a case-study in non-creative destruction | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist – Last Man There — March 12, 2019 @ 7:33 pm

  3. EU grounded this planes as well

    Comment by The Love Boat Blog — March 13, 2019 @ 1:36 am

  4. One word: Elysium (the movie).

    Well, OK, maybe five: plus Brave New World (with all the hi-tech machinery taking over).

    Say what you will about Wallerstein; I’m a fan. I have learned from different takes on Marxism, and Wallerstein has definitely taught me a lot. Back in 1990’s he predicted a bifurcated world ahead, in which there were two possibilities: either humanity is able to chart a course toward a more egalitarian state of social organization, or capitalism would evolve into a far more vicious form of class society.

    With the western left having failed so fundamentally when faced with the Syrian revolution, given such a clear choice of whom to side with, I think the future is pretty bleak.

    Another example of most of the western left having lost all morality: feminist peace organizations like Code Pink organizing trips to pay respect to the operators and functionaries of a *theocratic* dictatorial state (Iran) in which people espousing Code Pink ideals end up in jail, get tortured and outright killed under torture. Iran, whose government is directly responsible for the tens upon tens of thousands of deaths of Syrian civilians, responsible for erecting and running industrial-scale torture and rape camps for Syrian opposition members, a state that, in complicity with the U.S., has destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan beyond repair for decades to come. And a western ‘peace’ organization takes pains to travel there to give succor to the functionaries of such a state?

    [Parenthetically, the irony of the U.S.-led sanctions is that those sanctions have only strengthened the state vis-a-vis the people of the country. It’s pretty much a mafia state, and it finds all kinds of ways to get stronger by bleeding the people even more. So, despite Code Pink’s purported intentions, their trips (two so far, one back in 2008 and one just recently) to visit different ministries and meet some people the state had lined up for them (and going shopping) has the same effect as the American government-led sanctions: strengthening the theocratic state, in Code Pink’s case by giving the mullahs something to boast about! Well done Code Pink!]

    The future does not look very bright.

    Comment by Reza — March 14, 2019 @ 5:35 am

  5. “The Western left” IMO, starting in the Vietnam era, but carrying forward certain tendencies of the Popular Front variety– remained alive through an unholy fusion of refried Stalinism and the particular variety of neoliberal ideology we now call libertarianism (perhaps reaching its highest expression in people like Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, and the leakers who love them).

    In a sense, this isn’t a failure of morality as such, but a political failure reinforced not by immorality but by an excess of a certain kind of moralism that always leads to hopeless contradictions, particularly when reduced to the intuitive reactions of commodity-crazed American dimwits.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — March 14, 2019 @ 4:32 pm

  6. “this isn’t a failure of morality as such, but a political failure reinforced not by immorality …”

    I agree, but bear with me here: When an organization that calls itself ‘feminist’, for example, makes a trip to a theocratic state that considers women as half worth men, and (to my knowledge) has never asked to meet with political prisoners advocating for women’s rights in that country … well, I don’t know what else to call it but ‘immoral’. Not ‘hypocritical’ in this particular action. But definitely immoral, because in this action, they have put aside their own avowed social morality. Their hypocrisy comes out when we see them getting loud about the plight of women’s rights activists in jail in Saudi Arabia, but ignore it in Iran. But on the trip they made to Iran without demanding to see some political prisoners, they were immoral. They were acting the same as a delegation of Russian politicos going to Iran to provide cover for a bunch of assholes, and to upgrade their own political resumes at the cost of the misery of the Iranian people.

    I’m all the way with you on your much better expressed evaluation of the particular roots of the failings of a lot of people on the left. And I shouldn’t keep harping on about ‘western’ left, btw. We (global southerners) have a lot of those types as well.

    Comment by Reza — March 14, 2019 @ 5:54 pm

  7. You can beat up on the western left all you want if you ask me. The Code PInk phenomenon–plu the facile and delusional false “anti-imperialism” of the world’s Blumenthals and Nortons is impossible IMO to defend (maybe those two really are Russian agents, though I’ve never thought so), and it frightens me that this is so widespread in place of thinking.

    As it happens, the knee-jerkers are more or less right about Venezuela, but wrong about everything else. I do think the “western left” should be taking a much stronger turn toward labor, and I wonder why we’re not at least seeing some sort of superficial pan-unionism such as was briefly mooted in 2010. What gives there? We’re seeing a shallow “third worldism” now that strikes me as exceptionally lifeless, and part of the problem is the absence of an organized labor focus.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — March 14, 2019 @ 6:24 pm

  8. “I do think the “western left” should be taking a much stronger turn toward labor, and I wonder why we’re not at least seeing some sort of superficial pan-unionism …”

    Unionism in this country has taken such a beating due to two factors: globalization of production and its supply-chain, as well as the corrupt union leadership historically (which dates way back). There are no traditional organizing methods on a national level that can deal with both those things; maybe the second one in a limited way, but we need to deal with BOTH of them. The globalization aspect is something that can only be confronted internationally. But, here again, with union leaderships already compromised, that international effort can be derailed and killed off by a thousand cuts.

    I do think, however, that there is a way toward a different type of ‘unionization’, through a reevaluation of the question of taxation. Besides the direct taxation of paychecks and sales and services, we have a lot of ‘socialized taxation’. For example, the type of urban planning that forces people to HAVE to commute long hours (mostly by cars) is a form of socialized taxation that benefits only the car companies and the fossil fuel industries. In the U.S., the privatization of education and lots of other services is another form of socialized taxation. War industry is yet another. All these forms of socialized taxation transfer wealth from working classes to corporations; so, there is a socialized surplus value extracted from the laboring classes outside the production cycle, and extended into the consumption cycle.

    But, I think we CAN address the socialized taxation and connect the overall taxation to what the working classes need, by forming ‘tax unions’, if you like, if we implement a system of taxation where tax payers *directly* decide how their taxes are to be spent. In this framework, for people who want to have a better education system, for example, there is an active incentive in their community to get together in a ‘union’ and organize taxpayers to allocate/appropriate funds for a more robust school system. The same can be done to provide more healthcare services, public transportation services, etc.

    The idea is to gain some control over the socialized and direct taxation extracted from us under the current system. We need to remove the ‘middle persons’, or the ‘representatives’, who act as the appropriation authority but do not really represent us; they only represent their rich donors and corporations (their owners, in other words).

    The proposals by progressives to increase taxes on the rich ignores this point. What, for example, is the use of taxing the super rich at 70% or more, if all the extra revenue goes toward a bigger Pentagon budget and bank bailouts? We the laboring classes need to establish a collective ownership over the expenditure of our taxes if we are going to get rid of some of the madness that blows us this way and that, at the whim of the ruling classes. That can be a start toward increasing our collective social power.

    Comment by Reza — March 14, 2019 @ 7:13 pm

  9. I remain piqued (I keep saying this, but … .) by the failure of the pan-union movement that tried to come together in 2010 and failed to materialize except for one big demonstration that made a lasting impression on me. Obstacles were 1) the lack of interest by the yuppies who are now DSA “socialists” in anything as grubby as that when they could be pratting about with Jon Stewart and Garrison Keillor in praise of “sanity”; 2) lack of interest by groups like the Carpenter’s Union and the other crafts/trades organization in anything that might upset all their intricate seniority and certification arrangements–as well as their contracts, 3) lack of interest by the UAW in anything that would threaten the position of Rich. Trumka, and also contracts; and a few similar problems. The teachers even then were the driving force; but IMO 4) without the support of workers seen as more mainstream and productive, they may have lacked the prestige to inspire widespread adherence to any program with them in the lead. I think this may still be true–

    My union history is this: for 6 months in 2010 I belonged as a business and technical writer to the National Writers Union, which is a local of the UAW. I dropped out when I got some contract advice from them which was contradicted when I had an attorney read the same contract the NWU “expert” told me was wonderful. He as good as told me it was a slave contract that I would have been crazy to accept. That piece of advice cost me $500 and it was money well spent. Remaining a member would have been an act of charity for me, and I’m not rich enough to indulge in noblesse oblige so I dropped out.

    I still can’t help thinking that despite all the reasons why nothing could possibly have come of this–not least the incompatibility of Gompers-Reuther-style unions with anything resembling a revolutionary agenda–an opportunity was missed by the Left which nobody seems to be chasing up today. If Sanders was half who his followers say he is, IMO, he would at least be pushing some kind of pan-union effort … .

    I still have the tee shirt from that one demonstration, BTW–tee shirts in modern life seem to outlast almost everything else … . I imagine that one or two of my tee shirts may become part of the fossil record when humankind goes extinct.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — March 14, 2019 @ 8:32 pm

  10. I’ll only add that with terminal AI and the potential obsolescence of work as we know it (sounds absurd, but … .) one possible reason for the lack of pan-unionism and big-unionism–otherwise a reasonable response (consolidation) to dwindling membership is the delicate problem that people have to begin demanding a share of the wealth even if they don’t have jobs. How do you get THAT off the ground? Especially in view of the fact that, contrary to popular belief, socialists do NOT believe in living off the state and money for nothing. Am I nuts? Yes, but … .

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — March 14, 2019 @ 8:40 pm

  11. Enjoyed reading your piece, Louis. Thank you. However, re “…they failed to override the system that was forcing the plane to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1, 2009 at about 125 miles an hour. Everyone on board, 228 passengers and crew, died instantly.” Later in 2009, after the reports of the tragedy, I read news reports that sensors on the aircraft’s nose were prone to ice-up at times, with the result of causing false readings for the pilots. Given what I read from you today, do you know if that early information and assessment was false or fake news? Or were those sensors part of the electronics even then? Regards, Roger J Burke

    Comment by Roger J Burke — March 15, 2019 @ 6:28 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 )

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: