Another Reason Not To Vote For Any Of Them

Via Bishop Hill and the Daily Mail,  another reason not to vote for any of them.

The prime minister, deputy prime minister and leader of the opposition have all clashed over green issues, but the joint declaration states: “Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today. It is not just a threat to the environment, but also to our national and global security, to poverty eradication and economic prosperity.”

“Acting on climate change is also an opportunity for the UK to grow a stronger economy, which is more efficient and more resilient to the risks ahead,” the joint statement says. “It is in our national interest to act and ensure others act with us.” A senior UK military commander has warned previously that climate change poses as grave a threat to the UK’s security and economic resilience as terrorism.

pledge

These people inhabit a different world than my one.

It follows the launch by the Climate Coalition of the Show the Love Valentine’s day campaign which aims to show government and businesses that the public cares about climate change and wants them to take action in Paris to tackle the issue.

To the best of my knowledge, the public usually regard action on Climate Change as the lowest of their priorities. They’ll have to invent a new public.

And, knowing them, they probably will.

 

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Another Reason Not To Vote For Any Of Them

  1. Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:.

    “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

    “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

    “There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”

    He also said:

    “Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

    Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.

    “Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”

    Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.

    “The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

    “It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”

    When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:

    “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

    “Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

    This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.

    “…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”

    Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.

    Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic

    • Frank its clear the government is afraid sanity might return and destoy their invented utopian ideas……….Im sure they plan to collapse the economies just to get us plebes to tow the line and force accept their plans. Hense why all the 100s of millions of bullets and armored vehichles the government gave to local police forces. Fear the people will rise up and you have to have superior fire power to quell a well armed militia of former soldiers.

  2. Letter: Anti-smoking efforts

    Sunday, February 15, 2015
    Peter P. d’Errico pointed out an Islamic state murder to publicize anti-smoking beliefs, in an effort to point out the over-zealous nature of their action.

    Well, Peter, Adolf Hitler, one of the all-time bad guys, was a reformed smoker and hated it. Under his leadership, Germany started anti-smoking campaigns and added restrictions not much different than we see today. Medical doctors studied smoking problems at length and such information was available. Smoking would have been history in occupied Europe except that WWII took all Nazi attention.

    When the Allies won, the U.S. wanted nothing to do with smoking cessation. It was cool then. We made tons of money with tobacco and the government did not want to lose it. So Nazi studies were ignored or worse. And now, 70-plus years later, we revisit the same issues.

    A large photo or a propaganda drawing of Adolf displayed in storefront windows is appropriate. He is saying something like “I quit smoking. You can, too!” I guess this will never happen.

    As for Leverett and Montague banning sales of tobacco, this is symbolic at best. It has to hurt their tax paying businesses with minimal deterrent to smokers. Any real smoker in those towns will go to New Hampshire where one pack is $4 less than Mass. One pack pays for the gas and any others are bonus.

    The board of health feels good, New Hampshire stores are a little better off, and every smoker still smokes.

    ALAN OWSEICHIK

    Greenfield
    http://www.recorder.com/home/15608067-95/letter-anti-smoking-efforts

  3. prog says:

    I could envisage the same three signatures at the bottom of an anti smoker decree.

  4. Hit this if you can guys I cant post on it

    Column: Smoke-free law can spare Kentuckians pain of lung cancer

    Throughout my 32-year career in business, both in offices in Cincinnati and as a lobbyist in Frankfort, I did not smoke – but those around me did. During the 1970s and 1980s, I spent all day, every day in small offices in Cincinnati filled with cigarette smoke.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, I worked in the Kentucky Statehouse, which was also filled with secondhand smoke.

    At the time, I didn’t think anything of it. Smoking at work was commonplace. The secondhand smoke that I was exposed to didn’t bother me. It was just part of doing business.

    What I would later learn is that my exposure to secondhand smoke was dangerous to my health. Working in a smoky place for six to eight hours is the equivalent of smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes.

    In 2003, I was getting ready to play in a Cincinnati Reds fantasy camp reunion when I came down with pneumonia. An X-ray found a spot on one of my lungs, and after a series of PET scans and CAT scans, I was diagnosed with lung cancer.

    Early in 2004, I had surgery to remove 20 percent of my lung, and endured chemotherapy from March through June of that year. I lost my hair that year as well.

    I was fortunate enough to be declared cancer-free late in 2004.

    However, I still must endure annual chest X-rays – and the worried wait for results – to make sure that cancer hasn’t returned. I used to love to run, but with 20 percent of my lung removed, I can no longer do so. I get out of breath going up steps.

    My cancer diagnosis has been a source of incredible physical and emotional hardship for my family. I tell people that I am a member of a club and that the initiation is the doctor telling you that you have cancer.

    I don’t want any more members in my club.

    Yet, thousands of Kentuckians will join the lung cancer club and, if they are fortunate to live, will still endure the same hardships that I have. The American Cancer Society projects that 4,680 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed in Kentucky in 2015, and 3,550 residents of our state will die from it.

    While I am now a lung cancer survivor for more than 10 years, most are not. Of the people who are diagnosed with lung cancer early, when the cancer has not spread outside the lung, only about half are alive five years post-diagnosis.

    Offices like the ones I worked at in Cincinnati and Frankfort are now smoke-free, but not all workplaces in Kentucky are. Employees in many bars, restaurants and other businesses are still exposed to secondhand smoke, as I was.

    A smoke-free law can protect all Kentucky workers from exposure to secondhand smoke at work. It can also improve our health, reducing rates of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma.

    If you think like me and want to protect Kentuckians from secondhand smoke exposure, please call the Kentucky Legislative call center – 800-372-7181. Tell your state representative and state senator that you support House Bill 145, “Smoke Free Kentucky,” and hope that they vote “yes” to eliminate smoking indoors in businesses, restaurants and bars.

    http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2015/02/16/column-smoke-free-law-can-spare-kentuckians-pain-lung-cancer/23490663/

    • garyk30 says:

      Let’s see:
      4,680 lung cancers this year
      3,550 lung cancer deaths this year

      Population of Kentucky = 4,413,457

      Chance of getting lung cancer = 1 in 943

      Chance of lung cancer death = 1 in 1,243

      Chances of NOT getting lung cancer = 99.9%

      Chances of NOT dying from lung cancer = 99.9%

      Kentucky’s share of the 3,400 lung cancer deaths nationwide that are due to SHS
      is about = 50

      Chance of having a SHS ’caused’ lung cancer death = 1/46,200

      Probabilty of NOT dying from a SHS ’caused’ lung cancer = 99.998%

      This dude should ask his God of choice what it was that he did to piss that off to such an extent.

  5. Rose says:

    Selfridges in Manchester insults 20% of it’s customer in an statement born of political expediency.

    Selfridges claim ‘anti-homeless’ spikes outside store were installed to stop smoking and litter

    “A spokeswoman said: “Selfridges installed the studs on December 1 last year as part of a number of measures to reduce litter and smoking outside the store’s team entrance, following customer complaints.”

    But council chiefs are still looking to hold talks with Selfridges bosses to make sure the metal was not installed as an ‘inhumane’ anti-homeless tool.”
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/selfridges-claim-anti-homeless-spikes-outside-8654947

    How many people stand and smoke 18 inches of the floor with their heels pressed against a plate glass window?

  6. Smokers Against Discrimination

    The list of smoker’s rights parties and organisations near to you.
    …………………………………
    Forces International
    http://www.forces.org/

    Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
    http://www.citizensfreedomalliance.org/

    Smokers Rights Newsletter Encyclopedia
    http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/

    C.A.G.E. (Canada)
    http://www.cagecanada.ca/

    Tobacco Smokers of Canada
    http://www.tobaccosmokersofcanada.ca/

    Smokerschoice.com (Canada)
    http://www.smokerschoice.org/

    Citizens for Civil Liberties (Canada)
    http://www.citizensforcivilliberties.ca/

    New York City C.L.A.S.H (USA)
    http://www.nycclash.com/

    American Smokers Party (USA)
    http://www.americansmokersparty.com/

    Cigar Rights of America (USA)
    http://www.cigarrights.org/

    Smoking Aloud (USA)
    http://www.smokingaloud.com/

    Stop the Bans (USA, Colorado)
    http://www.stopthebans.com/id49.html

    The Truth is a Lie – Pennsylvania Action Network (USA)
    http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/

    M.A.S.H. (Michigan Against Smoker Harassment) (USA)
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/634895219888700/

    Smokers Against Discrimination
    http://sad.citizensfreedomalliance.org/

    Velvet Glove Iron Fist (UK)
    http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/

    FOREST (UK)
    http://www.forestonline.org/

    F.A.G.S – Fight Against Government Suppression (UK)
    http://www.uk-fags.co.uk/

    Smokers ReUnited (UK)
    http://www.smokers-reunited.co.uk/

    The Free society (UK)
    http://www.thefreesociety.org/

    Stichting Rokers Belangen (Netherlands)
    http://www.rokersbelangen.nl/

    Raucherbewegung.eu (Austria)
    http://www.raucherbewegung.eu/

    Klaus K BLOG (Denmark)
    http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/

    Roeg.dk (Denmark)
    http://www.roeg.dk/

    Rygerpartiet (Denmark)
    http://www.rygerpartiet.dk/

    HORECACLAIM EUROPE (Belgium)
    http://www.horecaclaim.eu/…/1-Horecaclaim_Europe_Has_Been_F…

    Fedcaf Belgium
    http://www.fedcaf.be/

    „Национална асоциация на свободните (НАС) – Свободен избор” (Bulgaria)
    http://svobodenizbor.org/bg/

    Northern Kentucky CHOICE
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/nkychoice/
    ………………………………………….
    = Facts & Lies about Smoking =
    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/…

    = BAN THE BAN SAVE OUR PUBS & CLUBS (JOBS, CARS, HOMES) =
    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/…

  7. Weve got 10-12 inches of snow on the ground here at home in Ky where Im at on the ridge. I just made a run down to my sons to drop off some hot dinner about 4 miles away. My hopped up 1991 6 inch left 36 inch mudders made it all the way there and back no problem,just wish I had a snow plow attachment. It will probably be tomorrow late before the plows get to us up here. Ya see we kind live on top of a mountain and every way out is down hill and when it snows like this about every 2-3 years they cant get to us and we cant get out…………its literally a whiteout outside.

    But everyone that was out playing in he snow just give me this big ole grin and a thumbs up! I left tire track marks deep and solide enuf for maybe some of the guys with hiway thread 4 wheel drives to get out now or at least attempt it.

  8. RHETORIC TRUMPS SCIENCE?
    How dare you find against PLAIN PACK!

    Department of Economics at the University of Zurich – ask the anti-smoking organization OxyRomandie and its president Mr. Diethelm to stop their defamatory campaign against us and the University of Zurich.

    Dear Prof. Dr Hengartner,
    On behalf of my association, OxyRomandie, I am writing to you to request the retraction of the following two papers which are published on the website of the University of Zürich:

    Kaul A and Wolf M. The (Possible) Effect of Plain Packaging on the Smoking Prevalence of Minors in Australia: A Trend Analysis. University of Zurich Department of Economics Working Paper Series. May 2014; Available from: http://www.econ.uzh.ch/static/workingpapers.php?id=828

    Kaul A and Wolf M. The (Possible) Effect of Plain Packaging on Smoking Prevalence in Australia: A Trend Analysis. University of Zurich Department of Economics Working Paper, June 2014. Series. Available from: http://www.econ.uzh.ch/static/workingpapers.php?id=844
    You will see in the Annex the list of errors which we have identified with these two papers. They are extremely serious. Taken individually, most of them are sufficient to invalidate the findings of the papers. Collectively, they are damning. We also document in the Annex some serious issues which throw further doubt about the credibility and integrity of the science involved in their preparation.

    The publication of these two papers, which were funded and supervised by tobacco multinational Philip Morris, occurs at a critical time when a number of countries are considering the adoption of plain packaging, a smoking prevention measure recommended by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control1. A few days ago, the UK Government announced that it would proceed with plain packaging legislation and a vote will be taken in the UK parliament before May of this year.
    The tobacco multinationals present these two papers as key pieces of scientific evidence that plain packaging is not effective, in their effort to counter the public health policy of these countries. They take advantage of the authority conferred to these papers by the fact that they are published by the University of Zürich. For instance, in its response to the UK Department of

    1 The WHO/FCTC is a UN treaty dedicated to public health, which currently comprises 180 Parties

    OxyRomandie – 2, rue de la Fontaine CH-1204 Genève
    http://www.ox yromandie.ch – CCP 17-729996-9

    Health’s consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products, Japan Tobacco International refers to these studies as “studies by the Universities of Zürich and Saarland.”
    As long as the two papers remains on the website of the University of Zürich, the tobacco multinationals will continue to argue that these papers receive the endorsement of your academic institution.
    We do not ask that these papers be retracted because we do not like their conclusions. We ask the University of Zürich to retract them because they are erroneous beyond repair and because, dealing with an important subject in public health, they interfere with the public health policy of other countries, with consequences that could affect the health of millions of people. We are simply asking the University to assume its responsibility in this matter.

    The seven critical errors which we have noted – and our attempt was to be as exhaustive as possible – could be explained by the sort of errors that sometimes creep into papers. However, we must observe that these errors are not randomly distributed but they all go in the same direction, towards reinforcing the conclusion of a lack of evidence, i.e. they all play in favour of the commercial interest of the financial sponsor. Thus, at the 5% level of confidence, one can presume the existence of a bias – conscious or not – by the authors.

    We think that the above raises the fundamental question of the integrity of science. The University of Zürich should not let the tobacco industry corrupt science and should protect itself against those who want to take advantage of its influence and reputation, not hesitating to put science at the service of money and not heeding the mission entrusted to this public institution, a mission which consists in particular in disseminating a culture founded on scientific knowledge and raising public awareness of the responsibilities that teachers assume towards society.
    On behalf of OxyRomandie, I am urging the University of Zürich to retract the above two papers and issue a media release explaining the reasons for the retraction.
    With my best regards,
    Pascal A. Diethelm, President

    REPLY:

    Public reply to the letter with subject “Request for retraction of two papers published on UZH website” by Pascal A. Diethelm

    The letter by Mr. Diethelm, President of OxyRomandie, to the Rector of the University of Zurich makes grave allegations against us and two working papers that we wrote on the effects of plain packaging in Australia. It claims that an annex to the letter has identified a list of seven errors that “are extremely serious. Taken individually, most of them are sufficient to invalidate the findings of the two papers. Collectively, they are damning”. It is alleged that the two papers are “erroneous beyond repair” and that the errors “all go in the same direction, towards reinforcing the conclusion of a lack of evidence [that plain packaging is effective]”. Mr. Diethelm concludes that “one can presume the existence of a bias”. He labels our science as “corrupt” and claims that we “put science at the service of money”. Mr. Diethelm calls for the withdrawal of the papers because they “interfere” with the public health debate on the effectiveness of plain packaging.

    This is extremely strong language that makes accusations of the utmost seriousness regarding our scientific and personal integrity. One would expect that a sincere scientist would be 100% certain before making such reckless accusations. We have carefully reviewed the seven alleged errors that form the basis for these accusations. We are unable to find a single “extremely serious” error with the substance of our work, much less errors that warrant defamatory accusations of “bias” and “corrupt” science. Indeed, as we outline in our reply to the annex to Mr. Diethelm’s letter (attached to this document), the anonymous authors of the OxyRomandie critique (i) have shown a surprising lack of basic statistical knowledge and (ii) have made a series of false statements about the content of our working papers. Furthermore, the authors of the annex have chosen to hide in anonymity, since the annex is signed only by “OxyRomandie”. We deem such conduct to be unprofessional and below the standards of any credible scientist.

    As academics, we welcome substantive criticism of the approaches and methods applied in our work, and of the validity of the conclusions drawn. Indeed, such criticism is an important part of the scientific process that furthers the objectives of research – in this case in the effectiveness of plain packaging. To that end, as part of the standard academic process in our field, “working papers” are published precisely to allow criticism by peers – hopefully, informed and constructive criticism. In the standard process, a working paper is then developed in light of
    Department of Economics

    criticism by peers, and may be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Last but not least, a credible academic should not need to resort to name calling and insults in any serious debate.
    We have followed the standard academic process to promote research into the evaluation of an important public policy area, namely plain packaging. Through our working papers, we have published the methods that we used and the results that we obtained in a completely transparent manner. We have responded to comments and criticism that have been made of our work by strengthening our methods and clarifying results, which remain unchanged. The approach that we have taken is the very essence of the scientific process.

    We regret that Mr. Diethelm and the anonymous authors of the OxyRomandie critique seek to stifle normal academic debate on the effectiveness (or not) of plain packaging by seeking the withdrawal of our two working papers for spurious reasons. Proper academic debate would not begin with a letter to the university rector relying on an anonymous critique of our paper, making defamatory accusations of bias and corruption, and calling for published papers to be removed from public scrutiny. Instead, it would start with named authors publishing a substantive statement of the alleged errors with a view to a proper debate with us, as the original authors. We would then have been happy to explain why the alleged “serious errors” are not errors at all but defensible choices of routine methods.

    As we explain in the attached reply, our chosen methods are standard techniques for assessing the impact of a policy like plain packaging. Moreover, many of our methods, including those criticized by OxyRomandie, were chosen because they tend towards finding a plain packaging effect. Hence, our choices favor the position of proponents of plain packaging. It is curious to us that OxyRomandie should criticize us for applying standard evaluation techniques, in particular those that are deliberately intended towards a favorable finding that plain packaging reduces smoking. Perhaps even Mr. Diethelm himself – consciously or not – realized in the end that he has failed to discredit our research. In the third-to-last paragraph of his letter, he states that “[t]hus, at the 5% level of confidence, one can presume the existence of a bias – conscious or not – by the authors.” Of course, at a 5% level of confidence, one might expect bias in any research; though we cannot be sure whether this wording is indeed the result of a Freudian slip or due to the failure of Mr. Diethelm to understand the difference between a confidence level and a significance level.

    Our two working papers provide the first publicly available empirical assessment of whether plain packaging has reduced smoking in Australia. With the effectiveness of plain packaging under intense public scrutiny, theymake an important contribution to the ongoing debate, using objective scientific methods. Mr. Diethelm calls upon the University of Zurich to retract the two working papers. However, the anonymous authors of the OxyRomandie critique have not identified any error that would justify such a retraction. As the authors of the working papers – committed to an open, free and objective scientific debate – we will not withdraw them from public scrutiny. Finally, we ask Mr. Diethelm to direct any future criticism directly to us without resorting to unfair attacks on the University of Zurich. Unlike the authors of the annex, we sign all of our research by name and assume full responsibility for it.

    Department of Economics
    In the interest of providing access to the entire debate for all interested parties, we ask Mr. Diethelm to publish this letter and the attached reply to the annex on the OxyRomandie website along with his original correspondence. We will do the same on the IPE website.
    Signed, Prof. Dr. Ashok Kaul Institute for Policy Evaluation (IPE) Saarland and Department of Economics, Saarland University
    Prof. Michael Wolf, Ph.D. Department of Economics University of Zurich

    More can be found here.
    http://www.ipe-saarland.de/english/news/

  9. Frank Dungeon has me
    RHETORIC TRUMPS SCIENCE?
    How dare you find against PLAIN PACK!

    Department of Economics at the University of Zurich – ask the anti-smoking organization OxyRomandie and its president Mr. Diethelm to stop their defamatory campaign against us and the University of Zurich.

    Dear Prof. Dr Hengartner,
    On behalf of my association, OxyRomandie, I am writing to you to request the retraction of the following two papers which are published on the website of the University of Zürich:

  10. Smoking Lamp says:

    Here is a nice libertarian commentary on the recent new Orleans ban.

    Five Characters in Search of a Reason for New Orleans’s Smoking Ban
    By William Sullivan
    New Orleans’s city council has unanimously approved a city-wide smoking ban in all bars and casinos, making it the latest big city to pass such a smoking ban without the courtesy of a popular vote. The ban itself, like the others that came in cities before it, is purported to promote the public welfare. Non-smokers, government officials argue, have the right to have their lungs be unafflicted by dangerous secondhand smoke if they choose to visit or work in any establishment. In the case of New Orleans, teary-eyed city councilman James Gray II read aloud the names of people he knew who died of lung cancer, which “convinced” lawmakers to approve the smoking ban. While we can all sympathize with Mr. Gray for his losses, we should also point out that knowing people who died of lung cancer does not mean that their having lung cancer was due to secondhand, or “passive,” smoke. In fact, new evidence suggests that the link…(Read Full Article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/five_characters_in_search_of_a_reason_for_new_orleanss_smoking_ban.html)

  11. City of Conway strikes down smoking ban in indoor public places

    WBTW – Myrtle Beach and Florence SC

    While council voted against the smoking ban in indoor public places, it did pass first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking and tobacco …

    http://www.wbtw.com/story/28122802/city-of-conway-strikes-down-smoking-ban-in-indoor-public-places

No need to log in

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