Fact checking Tony Abbott

I’ve had two calls in the last 24 hours asking me to fact-check claims by Tony Abbott. I accepted one, and found that his claims were nonsense (links soon, I hope). The other didn’t sound much better, but I thought I’d let someone else deal with it.

The emergence of systematic fact-checking is a huge vulnerability for Abbott, coming at just the wrong time for him. Until recently, the perception that the government was untrustworthy and deceitful[1] allowed Abbott to get away with just about anything he said, and he took full advantage of this. Now his record is littered with obvious lies and he’s finding it hard to break the habit. Worse still, the post-truth state of the political right, in Australia and the US, makes it hard for anyone on that side of politics to discern the truth even if they want to. Once you assume (correctly) that anything said by Bolt, the IPA, the Oz, Fox and so on is probably false, where can a conservative go for information. Essentially, it’s necessary to do the work from scratch, and I don’t get the impression that Abbott or his team enjoy hitting the books[2]. So, switching from his previous line of fact-free negativity and putting forward a positive alternative to Rudd is going to be very difficult for Abbott, I think

fn1. As previously, I don’t want to debate the accuracy of this perception. I don’t suppose anyone will dispute its existence
fn2. To be fair, he obviously trains much harder than I do, as our relative performance in endurance events illustrates. But I haven’t found a lot of transference of training between ironman length triathlon and policy analysis.

92 thoughts on “Fact checking Tony Abbott

  1. 😦

    A few people seem to be asking if supporting smaller government means being in favour of neglecting other people and caring only for yourself. That this is somehow the essence of the argument for free markets. Of course the answer is no.

    Do supporters of big government eat babies and molest small children?

  2. I said in market economies. Ideologies of small government in market economies are normally based on the notion that the market economy will do things better than government would. The market economy doing things well is based on the “invisible hand” notion, whereby everyone’s selfishness hypothetically works together with competition to create optimum outcomes. The economic theory associated with this idea of “unfettered” markets being near perfect, or Pareto optimal or what have you, are based on the assumption that selfishness is the only significant human motivator. The math ceases to work if it isn’t (the math also ceases to work if there is imperfect information, positive economies of scale, a future, and a number of other annoying real world things, but that’s another story).

    So if one is subscribing to that idea, it’s weird to be acting as an example of something (unselfish behaviour) that the theory assumes doesn’t exist and stops working if it does. And if you’re going to be unselfish, it’s odd to back a theory that assumes/requires everyone to be selfish. Just saying.
    Now sure, you could subscribe to small government ideas in other ways. But there aren’t a lot of developed ideas along those lines. The normal “small government” approach relies on markets to take up the slack. In a market economy small government is going to mean big private money instead, so if you’re not wild about big private money and the market taking everything over you have a problem there . . .

    For that matter, one could back “small government” in a nonmarket economy. Some social anarchists believe in local-oriented, decentralized economies with egalitarian production controlled by the workers at a grassroots level, with government existing but being largely local and consisting largely of direct democracy with participatory budgeting, while higher levels are mostly along the lines of standards bodies so you don’t get a gajillion different railway gauges or something. But for some reason I don’t suspect your “small government” is like that.

  3. So yeah, I don’t see why there’s a problem with saying the argument for free markets is about selfishness. The argument for free markets is explicitly and centrally about selfishness; that’s the advertising on the cover, it’s not like it’s some deep dark secret to be hidden. I’m not even talking Ayn Rand here, just basic right-ish mainstream economics.
    How this can be compared to accusations of government wanting to eat babies is beyond me. Saying free markets are about selfishness is like saying government is about providing public goods and states are about monopolizing violence within their territory.

  4. So yeah, I don’t see why there’s a problem with saying the argument for free markets is about selfishness.

    Big government interventionism is selfishness enshrined. As such it seems reasonable to assume that a lot of the argument for big government interventionism is about selfishness. I think the arguments for free markets and small government are generally driven by more noble motives.

    However in spite of your line of questioning I don’t actually think the motives of the proponents is the core issue. We ought to consider the merit of the arguments themselves.

    A society with a small government sector and a free and open exchange of goods, services and ideas is certainly driven by individuals responding to incentives. But the individuals in a society with a bloated government and restrictions on the exchange of goods, services and ideas also respond to incentives. Obviously the outcomes of those individual responses will be different under the two systems.

    I’d personally rather live in the former as based on experience, observation and reading I would expect the former to not only be more prospereous but to also mould and draw in a more virtuous cohort of humans. Is it selfish to want a prosperous society filled with more virtuous people? Perhaps.

    I suspect critics of free markets have a more cynical view of humans than advocates. Perversely the critics of free markets seem to think that large scale confiscation of wealth and income, coupled with a complex system of redistribution based on voting and then administered by beauracracies, will somehow encourage greater virtue. It is utter madness but this thinking is all too common.

  5. @terjeP

    I suspect critics of free markets have a more cynical view of humans than advocates.

    Reading the advocates for ‘free markets’ in the MBCM that’s not the impression I get. They assume that people are by nature greedy, anti-social and uninterested in public policy, and worse, unlikely ever to be any better. Their lot coined the term hip-pocket nerve.

    * NB: I situate the term ‘free markets’ alongside other memes. I don’t accept they ever have or can exist, except as political slogans by those amongst the privileged seeking to gloss their unwarranted social advantages.

  6. Fran – circles only exist as abstract concepts. Any circle that people might point to in the real world actually have little bumps. But we can certainly discern that one thing is more like a circle than another. Likewise “free markets” as some perfect ideal may be unachievable, and even more unachievable than a circle, but that does not mean the concept lacks rigour or value. You may wish to dismiss advocates of free markets as rainbow chasers but if so that is due to perfectionist simplifications in your thinking not theirs.

  7. @TerjeP

    That’s a fudge. If you are advancing ‘free markets’ as an actionable entity in the real world, you need not only to to define those “bumps” but show that others you cite as ‘free market advocates’ see the same “bumps” you do rather than wave your hands in their direction.

    The term ‘free market’ is, IMO, inherently misleading. Indeed, one can argue that even the word ‘market’ which conjures images of some sort of agora in Ancient Greece is misleading. While a shopping centre may look like a contemporary agora the wider economy which is the hinterland for the shopping centre is not and never will be.

    The reality is that the international system of states and state-backed banking and currency provides and indispensible scaffold for every commercial activity.

  8. On your last paragraph I would say yes. Regarding specidic bumps needing specific discussion I would also say yes. But I don’t see what I said to be a fudge.

  9. p.s. actually on reading your last paragraph again I’d say yes if you replaced the word “indispensable” with “extremely useful”. Otherwise I’d have to say no. But perhaps I’m being too literal.

  10. Purple Library Guy :The economic theory associated with this idea of “unfettered” markets being near perfect, or Pareto optimal or what have you, are based on the assumption that selfishness is the only significant human motivator. The math ceases to work if it isn’t (the math also ceases to work if there is imperfect information, positive economies of scale, a future, and a number of other annoying real world things, but that’s another story).

    Include the utility of everyone else in the utility fuction of individuals. Math works fine. Assuming that everyone acts to maximise some utility function is not the same as assuming that everone is selfish.

    Purple Library Guy :the math also ceases to work if there is imperfect information, positive economies of scale, a future, and a number of other annoying real world things, but that’s another story.

    Which is why I have views that are probably most accurately described as social democratic.

    I’m just saying that the notion that everyone is motivated by selfishness is not he only way to develop an ideology of small government.

  11. Terje “Big government interventionism is selfishness enshrined.”

    How big is a ‘big’ government? Did Howard make government any smaller and yet you voted for him? Hypocrite?

    What sort of person is in favour of big government for the sake of big government? Govt gets bigger because there is a need. If your sort of people really cared for society, there would not be a need because you would look after people, but you do not.

    Give us the rational argument that government is selfishness ‘enshrined’? What does enshrined mean to you? Did you know that the use of these emotive words makes it obvious that the basis of your ‘faith’ is emotional and not rational?

    You really have no idea how to argue rationally, do you? To counter the ‘truth’ of Purple Library Guy’s argument – its a bloody good one – that selfishness is the basis of your faith/ideology, you just make an outrageous claim that will change the focus of the discussion. That is where the term glibertarian comes from, you know.

    You did not provide a refutation of that fact or any explanation of how selfishness can be accepted as the human attribute that will bring about the best of all possible worlds. That is what is required for you to make a start on learning to argue rationally.

    Where is the evidence that selfishness will bring about a better world? There is none. The human ‘nature’ – just behaviour really – that will be required for your pie in the sky system to work, has not evolved yet. We need to evolve more rational and less judgemental natures.

    But, the values and judgements your ideology makes about human nature, will prevent any such free society developing.

    But back to the topic. I think fact checking will affect Tony Abbott’s chances at the election; I think that it will work to influence Christians – and there are some real Christians out there according to youngest son who is a ‘yooth worker’ in a Christian organisation – who are ashamed of the lies and distortions that are being told by their party.

    And, although I don’t expect any change in the votes of the conservative’s in my small country town, they really are confused about what their party stands for. The only thing they have to say in response to criticism is that Labor spends too much money.

    I do point out that one has to invest in people if you want them to becomes less lazy and stupid. They get that.

    Particularly here in Qld where Newman’s cuts are affecting the health services that they need, and closing schools that are very important to the community, I think the agrarian socialist type conservatives are going to wise up to the mismatch between their values and your – libertarian – values of selfishness and whatever it takes to make a profit.

  12. A few people seem to be asking if supporting smaller government means being in favour of neglecting other people and caring only for yourself. That this is somehow the essence of the argument for free markets. Of course the answer is no.

    No, people in favour of small government are usually very sorry that there are so many poor, and they express their deepest sympathy while building bigger walls to keep them out.

  13. For those that recommend small(er) govt you would have to provide some evidence that small govt is better than big govt.

    To take the hypothesis to its natural conclusion the smallest govt ie a govt of one is the most efficient.

  14. Fran Barlow :
    Reading the advocates for ‘free markets’ in the MBCM that’s not the impression I get. They assume that people are by nature greedy, anti-social and uninterested in public policy, and worse, unlikely ever to be any better. Their lot coined the term hip-pocket nerve.

    name names! who exactly assumed that people are greedy, anti-social and uninterested in public policy? name names?

  15. How big is a ‘big’ government? Did Howard make government any smaller and yet you voted for him? Hypocrite?

    I vote for the LDP not the Liberals. Howard delivered much bigger government, took away gun rights and took us to war. If you think Howard is my hero you have not been paying attention at all.

  16. @Jim Rose

    Don’t be obtuse Jim. Browse commercial talk radio, the opinion columns in the Murdoch press and the journos mostly featured on their ABC’s talk. Whatever else they quibble about, there’s no sense from most of them that “the punters” as they like to describe them know the detail of, or care to find out about anything beyond themselves.

    For them, politics begins and ends with “how this will play” followed by ruminations about “messaging” and such.

    That’s of course why public policy discussion, evalauted using what the major parties say, is one big vacuous space in which slogans are reckoned as substance.

  17. If the quest for free markets was like a circle it would be a dog chasing it’s tail which perfectly describes the utopian concept. Amusingly historically some of the biggest advocates of free markets have expanded government to accommodate the ideal of the free market. If anything ends the ideal of the free market it won’t be the so called big state who fully support the ideal in theory, not practice but something else akin to measurement and thinking which goes beyond assumptions.

    Polanyi wrote of the advocates of slavery arguing laissez faire to retain the status quo while the opponents advocated freeing the markets to let the slaves free. He said that both of these parties who believed in the self regulating free market could only argue it was self regulated even when they or someone else was doing the regulating and that it wasn’t a free market but just an expression of preference as to what they liked or disliked.

  18. For them, politics begins and ends with “how this will play” followed by ruminations about “messaging” and such.

    Sounds like the ABC.

  19. @John Quiggin
    Slightly OT …
    Of course particulate carbon (smoke) emissions are a different sort of nasty (rather worse effects) which shows some (willful?)ignorance.
    I admit that the regular characterisation of hyperbolic cooling towers as “Nuclear Power Plants”can be annoying. I once had to attempt to correct the impression that the Anglesea power station (coal fired and not desireable) was a “nucular plant”. Without success, I’d add.

  20. Terje you might vote first choice DLP but you preference the LNP, no?

    So tell us, if it isn’t Howard who is your hero, where are your thinkers, what research projects are people with your ideology undertaking to show how implementing a small government will result in a decent society for as many people as possible.

    You are still avoiding providing an explanation of how you expect the implementation of small or no government to bring about a better society for all of us and not just those types of people you regard as valuable.

    Because that is the other really big problem with the libertarian ideology that you have advocated up til recently. There seems to be some sort of revision of your certainty about selfishness being a good thing lately, but if one goes back and reads up on your previous claims about how libertarianism and its focus on self-interest has the potential to bring about utopia or the nearest thing possible there is no sign that you suffered any discomfort with the anomalies that were then quite clear to others.

    So good for you to have come this far – it does take character to admit to having being misled by a convenient story.

    But I am very interested to understand what values apart from self-interest do you – and you too Jim Rose – support and think society should value and where is your argument about how and why these values are important?

  21. @Julie Thomas

    It is a waste of time debating with faith-reasoners. You will never change their minds and they are impervious to logic, reason and empirical evidence.

  22. It is a waste of time debating with faith-reasoners. You will never change their minds and they are impervious to logic, reason and empirical evidence.

    people do chnage their minds. For a discussion of how as people hit middle age their youthful radicalism tend to be replaced with conservatism see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7887888/Champagne-socialists-not-as-left-wing-as-they-think-they-are.html

    The paper is based on a study of 136,000 people in the World Values Survey. The data was from 48 different countries, during five periods between 1981 and 2008.
    – Participants were asked to choose whether they saw themselves as leftwing or rightwing.
    – The results were then compared with their responses to more detailed questions about their views, to determine how closely the participants own perception matched their real position on the ideological spectrum.

    Well-educated individuals are more likely to wrongly characterise their political position, thinking that they are more leftwing than they actually are. Holding down a job and raising a family leads them to adopt a more conservative outlook.

    One reason the left-intellectuals do not realise that they have shed their youthful liberalism is that they socialise with people going through the same ideological shift to the right.

    as people growth up and accept responsibilities, so do their politics

  23. Well, it’s true that as I grew up and accepted responsibilities, so did my politics. That is, when I was in my 20s I was largely apolitical, if nominally left of centre. When I married, had a kid, took responsibility for my wife’s already existing kids, I started thinking more carefully about the world my daughter would be inheriting and it led me to views that were increasingly solid about egalitarianism, rejection of exploitation, direct popular control . . . eventually to a quite radical socialist, quasi-anarchist stance.

  24. @Jim Rose

    Well-educated individuals are more likely to wrongly characterise their political position, thinking that they are more leftwing than they actually are.

    I can well believe that. There’s scarcely a bog I’ve been to where someone doesn’t preface claims most commonly associated with a right of centre perspective with “Hey, I’m as left as they come but …” “Nobody would ever call me a rightwinger but …”. Some of these are probably concern trolling but sometimes they seem quite sincere.

    Holding down a job and raising a family leads them to adopt a more conservative outlook.

    Doubtless that’s so. Also, the reality of mortality inclines many of us to focus on things that can be achieved within their own lifetimes and to adopt a somewhat less grand conception of the things for which one should strive.

    Certainly, I have. I’m a lot more conservative than I was in, say, 1984 and rather more than I was in 1994.

    Part of this also reflects the changed ‘facts on the ground’ of course. The fall of the USSR and its aftermath for me recommended in favour of a thorough re-evaluation of my conceptions of what was possible in practice, in what ways and to what extent the conceptions associated with Marx, Len|n and Trotsky remained germane, the role of ‘reform’ on timelines of significance to those of us who saw ourselves as favouring social justice and the empowermnet of the marginalised, the extent to which the ecosystem services as an issue for humanity as a whole imposed itself across class lines and so forth.

    These would have occurred even if I had remained single.

  25. @Fran Barlow

    The research does not back this claim up. Older people are generally socially more conservative than younger, because society has changed since they acquired their political beliefs. But – perhaps for precisely the same reason – older people are generally less conservative than they were when younger.

  26. Ikonoclast, I am fortunate enough to have time to waste and every so often it seems like a good idea to see if the libertarians have come up with anything interesting, any coherent idea that supports their religion.

    Apart from that there is much to be gained in terms of understanding human nature (well cognition anyway and the way people rationalise their beliefs which is big part of our putative nature) by asking people who are not like oneself, what and how they think.

    Jim has said something I agree with, people can change. But the motivation to change is lacking in successful Libertarians so I’m not expecting Terje to see the light and start thinking seriously about his motivated cognition.

    But if anyone else is interested there is a Cultural Cogntion site where they do research on this topic.

  27. @Fran Barlow

    I’m a lot more conservative than I was in, say, 1984 and rather more than I was in 1994.

    Part of this also reflects the changed ‘facts on the ground’ of course. The fall of the USSR and its aftermath for me recommended in favour of a thorough re-evaluation of my conceptions of what was possible in practice, in what ways and to what extent the conceptions associated with Marx, Lenin and Trotsky remained germane

    I am disappointing that you were involved for a time albeit a long time ago with non-democratic politics.

    Having to resolve differences by trying to persuade each other and elections is so cumbersome when you just know the way, the truth and the light, for as Orwell noted:

    The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent.

    Mises explained the youthful allure of socialism thus:

    It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life’s game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude.

    Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism.

    It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy.

    Marx predicted the immiserisation of the working class where there would be nothing to lose when they rose up but their chains. Instead, it is now rise up ye workers, rise up for you have nothing to lose but your Iphone and air miles.

  28. Not another one of these simplified ridiculous talking point arguments again.

    Let me make a couple of logical arguments in the same vein as what has already occurred:

    – Australia is made up of the city (left wing voting) and the country (right wing voting)
    – The right-wing voting part is less educated, less wealthy, more violent, and is a net taxation deficit
    – Therefore, left-wing ideology is better and is needed to make stable, prosperous countries

    – Conservative political views increase with age
    – The elderly suffer from endemic poverty rates
    – Therefore poverty is positively correlated with conservatism

    It’s all science bro!

  29. @Will
    “- Conservative political views increase with age”

    As I pointed out above, the research shows that people get less conservative as they age.

  30. @Jim Rose

    I am disappointed that you were involved for a time albeit a long time ago with non-democratic politics. {typo corrected}

    That’s simply mistaken. I was never involved with ‘non-democratic’ politics. I believe we have a difference of view on what bona fide democracy entails. For you, the mere appurtenances of democracy — elections to legislative office, separation of state and civil society, separation of the branches of government, an independent public service, protection of commodity property from state seizure — suffice to qualify some regime as democratic. For me, these features, while non-trivial are inadequate. The debauching of the term ‘democracy’ propmpts me to prefer ‘inclusive governance’ as a description of what I’d favour, since it works to ensure the informed consent of the governed in circusmstance where, so far as it can be had, the governed are equally socially empowered.

    Once again, I reject your characterisations of Marxism, borrowed from Mises and Orwell. Marxists do recoognise that opponents can be honest and intelligent. Neither of these is a warranty against being mistaken, but some of them may also prove to be correct. Others may be serving interests other than those of working people.

    Those of us who see ourselves as the allies of working humanity have no desire to humiliate anyone. We don’t see being the social equal of everyone else as degrading, but rather a statement of belonging — and an affirmation of the worthiness of life. Those who can bring their accomplishment and passion to making the world a better place for everyone become part of a positive sum are richly rewarded by that most elusive of all things in human life — worthy purpose, and insofar as they offer an intellectual or ethical exemplar to others, can take legitimate pleasure in their works. What greater reward could there be than that?

  31. @Fran Barlow The strength of democracy is a small group of concerned and thoughtful citizens can band together and change things by running for office and winning elections.

    That is how new parties such as the ALP, the country party, DLP, and greens changed Australia. One Nation even had its 15 minutes of fame. Bob Katter’s party is next.

    The ALP immediately won many seats and formed governments a few years later. Those agrarian socialists in the country party immediate secured cabinet seats.

    Over the 20th century, the state grew from a night watchmen size to account for 1/3rd to ½ of GDP with a generous welfare state because this was popular with the median voter.

    • Communists were elected to 40 odd parliaments including in Europe and Japan.

    • The Trots put up a good show in recent French presidential races. Sadly, the English Trots get less votes than the monster raving loony party, head to head.

    You find democracy frustrating not because parliaments cannot change things.

    You find democracy frustrating because you cannot win at the ballot box even under proportional representation in federal and state upper houses.

    When the shooters party, new DLP and the family and Christian parties win seats ahead of you, it is time to accept that your message simply does not resonate with the 99% of the electorate. Complete amateurs can win seats. the reason is their ideas are more workable than yours.

  32. @Fran Barlow
    Perhaps you are too kind to your interlocutors: this debate happens in a “virtual” bubble where your opponents have the metric as word production – they can only aspire to quantity rather than quality since they mostly lack ideas and empathy. By defining politics as inconsequential talk and voting once every 3 or 4 years between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, they deride what happens outside the parliamentary system – where real people try to improve their daily lives and their future. An example of this limited view of democracy is the spectacle of TV presenters being genuinely bemused at why Egyptian demonstrators don’t wait till the next election to vote out Morsi: because they think politics doesn’t really matter, so change has no urgency.

    For instance, JR likes to denigrate the SWP UK by comparing their vote to the Raving Looney Party. But the SWP ridicules parliament while standing for elections (read up on their reasons Jim, there are subtleties and tactics in politics). It also has participated and built things that matter, like the Stop the War march which got between 750,000 and 2 million people involved. This is what really matters to people who see politics as being about change not fake processes yet this is derided as non-democratic politics by conservatives. For JR to quote Orwell in support of his views is odious: Communist meant Stalinist to Orwell, and both you and I would probably be killed, gaoled or in hiding under such a regime. (Actually I can think of 3 state premiers who have been Stalinists or Trotskyists at some stage in their life, and many Federal ministers, who have contributed much to the body politic.)

    The political virgins who never take a risk or take a stand will never understand that doing things means making mistakes – as a teacher you probably agree that’s how we learn. Lastly, it’s always amused me that people who do nothing criticise people who do something because they don’t do everything.

  33. see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67175_Page3.html for a fact check of factchecking

    But while they are all formally nonpartisan and, in fact, drive Democrats in general and the Obama White House in particular crazy, their historical roots are in Democratic outrage, heavily laced with a centrist, journalistic impulse.

    … The same political operatives who hate being factchecked love to see their rivals skewered. And the power of the scientific-sounding factcheck label, ironically, makes a powerful tool in characteristically overstated political rhetoric.

  34. So, when the lighting allows, and you want the highest quality images,
    you should always shoot at the lowest ISO you can.
    s easier than you may think to make money as a digital photographer.

    Everyone wants to treasure some moments of the most auspicious day in their lives.

  35. @Jim Rose

    As usual, your copy and paste boilerplate entirely misses the point. My post was entirely about processes and structures associated with empowerment, rather than the triumph of any particular party.

    Your “analysis”, if it is fair to so signify so vacuous a post, invites questions that you assume require no answer and are paradoxical. By all means though, pretend to insight if it salves your suspicion that you have none.

  36. @Ken_L #9

    Didn’t notice your comment till now, sorry.

    Rethinking my comment about Abbott’s attraction to muscular pursuits, what I meant to say was that he doesn’t go for gentle exercise of the type you mention (like the Howard style power walks) which allow reflection on events and ideas and is useful to de-stress and work through things, and which I do myself.

    Rather, his inclination is for constant vigorous activity (including the assorted fluoro vest exercises of taking widgets off production lines, stacking boxes etc.) which is essentially distracting and mindless, and would seem to require lots of sleep, showering, changing of clothes etc. Do his work practices prevent him from matching Rudd on the intellectual arena? Would be interesting to know how many hours a day he spends on intellectual exercise – reading, working through policy issues, strategy meetings.

    This is not just an Abbott question of course – Kev 24/7 is lovebombing the population continuously at present, but he does seem on top of the issues and has a confidence in projecting his vision. Is it just me or is Abbott’s communication style awkward? It seems diffident and hesitant, and detached and ponderous like one of m’learned friends at the bar?

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