I Affirm and Aver the Following is Poo

The Whole Poo and Nothing But the Poo

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Sound of 'Splainin'
The Captain's Prop
peristaltor
I've been through a few presidential cycles in my cycles around the sun. Not as much as many, but more than a few. I know there are differences and similarities in each. But this time, this time feels ... different.

For decades now, money has been the name calling the game. The more money a candidate could raise, the more likely that candidate's victory. And the super-wealthy have been raising the stakes for all of us unwealthy just by parting with a bit of chump change. Sure, it's chump change that could buy us all dinner and a college education, but still, in comparison with their fortunes, it's insignificant. If you're already depressed about the condition of the country, don't you dare read Jane Mayer's Dark Money, for one sobering example.

So out of nowhere comes a Vermont Senator, a Socialist, no less, one almost no one outside of Vermont has heard of, and he gets popular ... without money. With only a promise to do things FDR got popular doing. No compromising, no deals, no "third way democrat" (just another term for republican in a donkey outfit). And it's exciting.

For the first time, we can see the possibility that the moneyed forces might not be able to buy an election. Sanders might lose, of course: when you attack money, you attack everything that makes money (the media and the media's funding mechanism, commercials) and everyone who takes money (almost everyone else).

Sadly, you also attack another candidate that has another demographic fired up.




I went to the local caucus (a democratic version of a primary). We stood in a very, very crowded room in a small school and decided which delegates to send to the Capitol. First, though, we exchanged opinions. And a few opinions on Clinton's candidacy were voiced by a woman whose voice was tiny. I don't know if she was nervous about public speaking, or excited about Hillary, or both, or neither. But there was such emotion behind her speaking. She was witnessing something that a vast majority of American women never lived to see: a woman running for president.

It was moving to see. But I couldn't agree.

Say what you will about Ms. Clinton—cite her experience, her record, all good, I am happy to concur—she is still mainstream. And in politics, that means she is pro-money.

When it comes to the glad-handling, the zillion-dollar-a-plate meals, the dialing for dollars, she is no change from the rest. Hell, remember President Obama's first debate with Romney, how badly he blew it? He was spending his time at fundraisers, burning the charisma instead of boning up on one of the biggest tests in his candidacy.

Back to Hillary. Back in 2008, when Hillary was running, she couldn't really go against moneyed interests. Her husband said of firms like Romney's, firms which buy companies with borrowed money, redirect them in a new direction, then bail on the "new" company, leaving them the bill for the borrowed money: "'I don't think we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work—this is good work.'"

Never mind that it is probably the most destructive, the most parasitical practice one can imagine. Never mind that at all. Why? Family.

From 2006 until 2009, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the former president, worked as an associate at Avenue Capital Group, a $14 billion private equity and hedge fund firm. Marc Lasry, co-founder of Avenue Capital, was a major Clinton supporter as well as a $1 million investor in a fund managed by the Clintons' son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky. Now, as the Obama administration was teeing up Romney's rapacious business record as his key disqualification, Clinton summarily announced that Romney's "sterling business career crosses the disqualification threshold."

(p. 323.)


So even if she wanted to revamp the tax laws and make it less likely for people with money to have enough money to leverage donations into favorable tax laws, she couldn't. Her daughter was a part of the problem, as was her husband.

Hell, Bill Clinton—one of my favorite Republican presidents, after all—pioneered the transformation of the Democratic party into a carbon-copy of the Actual Republicans. All he had to do was abandon all hope of keeping FDR's party alive and just attach the same name to the corpse. Money? No problem. You give a bit to us, they seem to say, and we'll let you keep it.

And then Bernie comes along and finally states the problem as it exists. Money is corrupting everything. The scale of the problem is seldom discussed, though there is some change happening there. Just today, I heard This American Life (same one I linked to above) interview one of the Richie Riches that is following Charles Koch's playbook. That was refreshing.

Why would he allow himself to be interviewed? I think things have gotten so bad in politics that the rich are bragging. They do call the shots. They don't donate, as in a charity; they invest, and they expect a return on that investment. Their goal is to keep taxes low, regulation (you know, those things that prevent poison from getting into too much water, air and food) non-existent as possible, and government small enough to bring to heel.

Doug Deason in the TAL piece ain't the only one bragging. One of the largest donors, Betsy DeVos of the Amway fortune, wrote this in 1997:

"I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party." She said, "I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican Party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. People like us," she concluded archly, "must surely be stopped."

(Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Random House, 2016, pp. 235-236.)


I agree, Betsy. You should be stopped.

But no one will be able to make a dent in your corrupting influence as long as they take money and give it to commercials. Ah, but here's the trap: feed the commercials and you feed the news agencies that rely on the commercials. News agencies, as primed as they are to scoop and dish the news, seldom attack the hands that feed them. Ever notice that?

So why would they delve deeply into political races with a critical eye to the deformations done in the name of money? They, after all, are the ultimate recipients of that money. Listen to a CBS executive crow about all that sweet, sweet political ad cash that will soon fill their coffers:

Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, celebrated Donald Trump’s candidacy for the second time on Monday, calling it “good for us economically.” Moonves, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference at the Park Hotel in San Francisco, described the “circus” of a presidential campaign and the flow of political advertising dollars, and stated that it “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.”

“So what can I say? The money’s rolling in, this is fun,” Moonves continued, observing that the debates had attracted record audiences.

(I emboldened the bold words.)


I want to defund the entire system. For the first time, thanks to Bernie, I can see that it might be possible.

And that's exciting.




But that would interfere with Hillary Clinton's presidency, wouldn't it? Well, yes. She's vulnerable when it comes to money, so yes.

And when I say things like this, express my disgust at money, my disgust at corruption, say I might sit this one out, I get nagging gnats in my ear.

I'm accused of being a "Bernie Bro," whatever that means. I assume it's not flattering.

I'm accused of voting for Trump. Okay, this has some merit, but very, very little. When I was young and ... well, young, I accused people who voted for Nader of being the cause for all the Shrubbery troubles that followed.

And now... I realize how wrong I was. Our problem then as now is our broken voting system. It sucks. We have to vote strategically to avoid "worse" evils.

But in places where they tried to fix this problem, we have the political status quo (and the media agencies that carry their water) describing a good outcome as a terrible one:

A record 8 of 11 supervisors on the new board have an interesting distinction: They were not the first choices of a majority of voters, but prevailed in the city’s ranked-choice voting system.


If you're unfamiliar, ranked choice gives people the option of voting for more than one candidate by rank. That way, if they candidate you do like doesn't win, your vote (or a portion of it, depending upon the system being used) goes to another you chose down your ranking.

It does mean, though, that candidates don't necessarily win by getting a majority of the first ranking.

Which the NYTs has declared means they were chosen by almost no one:

Several factors — including ranked-choice voting, which is an instant runoff system; the low turnout of 61 percent; and district elections with many candidates — mean that, individually, supervisors received the support of a tiny fraction of overall residents compared with 1980 to 1998, when board members ran citywide.

How small? Several supervisors were the first choice of only 2 percent or less of the city’s total voters.


So what?! They were also the second and third choice of a lot of people! Meaning they weren't "losers" as the article exclaims:

Since winning in the instant runoff, Mr. Weiner has been meeting with those who preferred his opponents. “I’ve been actively engaging those who did not support me,” he said.

Ms. Cohen, a fourth-generation San Franciscan, has had similar meetings and said she planned to hold office hours in cafes and libraries “to earn the support of those who did not support me.”


Which is ridiculous! Supporting a candidate with a first-rank vote is just a little better than supporting one with a second- or third-rank. It doesn't mean, as the first speaker described, that the people didn't support him at all!

But having more than one candidate in an election is disastrous to a newspaper or television station. They want the easiest way to report things, not the fairest. And easy means horse-race style, the fewer nuances between the participants the better.

That election style buys the most ads.




Which brings to to the overly-emotional displays of shock, of condescension, of disappointment that I've been seeing when anyone hears that anyone might dare vote someone other than Her. (And let's remember that not voting or writing in someone else is the same as voting for Hitler in this logic.)

I'm tired of this nattering crowd. They are HillSplaining, but I'm done listening.

Money is the problem. Would you like to know how bad? In the TAL piece, Deason said that Charles Koch himself might vote for Hillary.

Which means he does not see her policies as that threatening to his own privileged position.

And what little media coverage of this clusterfuck I've seen does nothing what journalists should be doing: Comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable. They can't. Their bottoms are riding on business winning, both fiscal bottom lines and asses.

So Bernie gets short shrift.

In the near future, though, I see a shift. Younger people have almost no future. Be the next 4 or 8 years under one of today's candidates, that future is almost guaranteed a continuing bleak destiny of sad. Which means these same young folks will hopefully vote against money next time.

In the meantime, if you are supporting Hillary, do so positively. Don't harangue. Don't challenge. Just support her. That's good political strategy. I won't challenge your decision, other than to good-naturedly quip that a real progressive would pick a logo that didn't point to the right.

We've gone rightward quite enough.

  • 1

::Applauds::


I hear all of this. I feel the same way, but for other reasons as well.


Thank you! And I'd like to hear some of those reasons. Still in Seattle?

(I'm sorry, I'm terrible at social follow-ups. My bad.)

No worries...I am also terrible with social follow-ups. I am still in Seattle, still in the U District. Still up for meeting up at some point, too, if I can get my act together.

I haven't had a chance to formulate my own thoughts on the Bernie vs. Hillary debate to where I can readily explain them to someone who isn't me, but when I do, it's likely to come in the form of my own entry because I write way too effing much and don't want to clog your comments.

Good essay! But I did have a few quibbles. (Which, per LJ standard, I will expound upon at great length, so much so that I seem to have overrun the comment length limits.)

They were also the second and third choice of a lot of people! Meaning they weren't "losers" as the article exclaims

Weren't necessarily, anyways.

Ranked-choice voting doesn't guarantee that the winner will be better in terms of favorable/unfavorable views of the voters; it's a legitimate criticism that ranked-choice can result in the election of less-popular candidates than largest-plurality:

For example, consider the following setup:
  • 45% favor candidate A, think candidate B is bad and candidate C is worse
  • 30% favor candidate B, think candidate A is bad and candidate C is worse
  • 25% favor candidate C, think candidate B is bad and candidate A is worse
In ranked-choice, 55% of the votes favor B after C is eliminated. B wins, but only 30% of the voters think B is a good candidate. In largest-plurality, A would win, and 45% of the voters would think the winner was a good candidate.

Ranked-choice does guarantee that a majority is at least as happy with the candidate as they would have been with largest-plurality (in the scenario above, 55% are happier with B than A). But you can construct scenarios where the overall satisfaction with the electoral outcome is much lower, e.g. where largest-plurality would elect a candidate that just shy of a majority thinks is good, while ranked-choice will elect a candidate that no one thinks is good.

In a (hypothetical) politically-polarized world where everyone thinks their favored candidate is great and every other candidate is the evilest thing since sliced Satan, you might get those sorts of outcomes quite often.

(You can construct scenarios that are as degenerate for largest-plurality, whether you assume people always vote for their first choice or not. But they're different scenarios.)

Of course, the article doesn't get into that. It's not like there's going to be extensive favorable/unfavorable polling done in city council elections. The story at least has some evidence that the candidates elected feel like that election method got them into office at a popularity disadvantage (the quotes from the board-members themselves). The article plays that up for drama, probably more than is justified.

That election style buys the most ads.

Wait a second. By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right? Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference? It seems to me that ranked-preference would result in more political ad spending. Suddenly, candidates might have a reason to care about their name-recognition among people who would never have them as a first choice.

Sure, there may be some indirect relation from largest-plurality voting, to simple horse-race stories, to attracting viewers, to raking in those ad dollars.

But at this point, I think there's some mixing up of media trying to attract political ads and media trying to attract ad dollars in general, as well as some mixing up of discussion of media positions on electoral reform versus campaign finance reform.

I think people who are concerned about the role of money in politics overestimate the direct effect of political advertising. Instead of worrying that the rich could use political ads as a good approximation of brain control, I'm more worried that media has the incentive to give lots of attention to whatever candidate is most divisive and crazy because even in the absence of political ad spending, that draws eyeballs to ads for cars or toothpaste or whatever. Instead of worrying that the media short-changed Bernie Sanders because Bernie Sanders is in favor of campaign finance reform, I'm more worried that the media short-changed Bernie Sanders just because Bernie Sanders was popular among an audience that doesn't watch so much TV news.

Edited at 2016-07-30 09:08 pm (UTC)

Good points. I'll try to clarify.

By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right?

I do.

Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference?

Excellent question. Every time there is an election (well, it used to happen every time), someone brings up some form of ranked choice. One of the advantages of ranked choice is that more than two candidates can run at the same time.

Which has a profound influence on the tone of the campaign.

When two are running, the most points are scored going negative, pointing out the real/perceived weakness of the opponent. One can spend equal time promoting one's strengths and the weaknesses of the other.

Ah, but when there are more viable candidates in the running, there simply isn't time to just call names, lest one forgets/is unable to tout one's own qualifications. The overtly negative candidate seems too negative when he/she has to aim barbs at multiple targets. More than two therefore creates a less negative campaign in general.

So, yes, with negative campaigning, the political system (called in McChensey & Nichols' Dollarocracy the "money-and-media election complex") gets to intertwine the negative swipes each candidate makes with their news system which will play up the negativity in the name of ratings bait. They got paid to run the very ads that will help them fill time in their required news broadcasts.

Which, again, proves more difficult to do with more than two.

I think people who are concerned about the role of money in politics overestimate the direct effect of political advertising.

In my opinion, the opposite is true. People concerned about shoring up the status quo downplay the role of money at every turn. If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads, one finds that money's corrupting influence is all but unstoppable for most elections.

Jane Mayer's Dark Money is a must-read in this department. The next few podcast episodes will be following the "money-and-media election complex" after I set up the situation vis-a-vis the current state of reporting.

Which, again, proves more difficult to do with more than two.

Maybe. If high-stakes national campaigns were done through ranked-choice elections, I'm not convinced politicians wouldn't find effective ways to do negative campaigning anyways. I mean, look at Trump, he didn't wait until the field had narrowed to "go negative" in his primary campaign.

If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads

That's why I said direct effect, we're in agreement here. But while both Clinton and Sanders are talking about overturning Citizens United, no one's talking about overturning Buckley.

I mean, look at Trump....

Ah, that's strategic. When people are focused on two candidates even before the field narrows, expect those candidates to go neg on each other. The same thing happened when Clinton and Sanders were the top two; Clinton went after Sanders even though there was another debater, standing right there, still "technically" in the race. His poll numbers were low enough for her to ignore him.

I should distinguish here that "going negative" refers not to negative comments in general, but specifically to negative attacks on the other candidate. Trump had gone negative about everything he didn't like, not just the other GOPpers in the race. Those people he all but ignored, except when he was polling high and they attacked him. Then, he responded.

As to finding ways to go negative, this has already been done on a Biblical scale, though mostly not by the candidates. Again, lots of stuff in Mayer's book on this, stuff I plan to share.

...no one's talking about overturning Buckley.

Or Bellotti. Both of those decisions provided the cited precedent in Citizens United, though Stevens' dissent pointed out that the majority was fairly selective in what portions of each were cited. He pointed out that they cited the dissenting opinions in Bellotti, for example, and ignored those portions of Buckley that did not support their conclusions.

(Sorry. Been geeking out on CU lately for planned episodes. Suffice to say that bonus episode on Powell plays a key part; Powell was the power behind both previous decisions. It turns out his nomination to the Court just three months after he wrote his memo was far from a coincidence.)

Those people he all but ignored, except when he was polling high and they attacked him.

I don't think it's accurate that Trump ignored chances to attack his primary opponents. Rather, he picked off his opponents one at a time with negative attacks he tested in front of his rally audiences: First Jeb Bush ("weak", "low energy"), then "little" Marco Rubio, then "Lyin'" Ted Cruz. Check out this video (which I got from our mutual friend, kmo). While I don't quite agree with the title and (despite the channel name) it's more about Trump's marketing savvy than his charisma (a better video about that is this one), it does a very good job of explaining Trump's very successful approach to negative campaigning in a crowded field.

Of course, you're right that he's not just negative about his opposition, and he's found an audience where denigrating the opposition isn't viewed negatively.

Interesting first video. Dead on.

I will note that the weaknesses he zeroed in on with the other GOPpers were known; for a tiny magazine I recently reviewed The Wilderness, McKay Coppins' take on the GOP candidate field. I wonder if Trump took those traits—the weakness, smallness, and lying-ness—from that book. (I doubt it, since he all but fired missiles at Coppins based on an early article about Trump.)

Still, it was all pretty low-hanging fruit, especially the stuff about slacker Bush and Markito. Heck, Coppins couldn't find anyone to attest to Cruz's religious background. They instead said he watched televangelists and copied their moves. No one could say he even attended church.

That's a bit off-topic, I know. I guess my point would be in some defense that he has stated other than negative policy goals (mostly about the debt and taxation). These get far less coverage, of course. And that fits with the theory that a multi-party election forces at least some positive statements about goals.

But who knows with Trump. Did you know he had to hire actors to fill the stadium when he made his candidacy official, and get passers-by inside with the bribe of free T-shirts?

Anything goes with this guy.

In the TAL piece, Deason said that Charles Koch himself might vote for Hillary.

Which means he does not see her policies as that threatening to his own privileged position.


Well, at least he sees them as less threatening than Trump's.

I'm not sure how much the Kochs should care about the details of campaign finance reform. It's not like they were uninfluential until Citizens United. But they were exerting that influence largely through the Republican Party (and related organizations), and that is quite a bit less likely to continue to exist in its previous form if Trump wins.

I'd guess that Charles Koch's support for Clinton over Trump has more to do with the effect of a Trump victory versus a Trump loss on the Republican Party than it has to do with the relative effect of either candidate on campaign-finance regulation.

other than to good-naturedly quip that a real progressive would pick a logo that didn't point to the right.

That seems like it's deliberately obtuse in service of a line. While "right" and "left" are used to refer to conservative and liberal, the directions are rarely used as a visual metaphor. The arrow in Hillary Clinton's logo points forward, same as the play and fast-forward icons, same as the direction of the flow of time on a timeline, the direction the figures are ordered in Zallinger's March of Progress. It's an obvious metaphor because English is read left-to-right.

But they were exerting that influence largely through the Republican Party (and related organizations), and that is quite a bit less likely to continue to exist in its previous form if Trump wins.

Not so much. The scope of the Koch's activities are mind-blowing, reaching into more than just the GOP. We're talking every branch of government at the federal, state and local level, and not just for election support; media; education; the list is long and depressing.

And let's remember that very little of that money is wasted. It is, every bit of it, an investment, most of which will pay off handsomely toward enriching their coffers or reducing their overhead. Again, several shows planned examining this phenomenon.

If Trump wins, he knows he will need the Koch's and folks like him to stay his full four years. I admit I haven't been following current events (been reading stuff most recently dating back a 100 years, stuff that is still relevant), but I can't see him advocating a complete Sanders-esque revamp of financing—let alone the truly drastic moves that cannot pass legislative muster, but that I see as absolutely essential.

That seems like it's deliberately obtuse in service of a line.

Exactly! That's what gives the line punch! It's obvious that her logo points to the right, and that progressives don't! Someone who sees or hears that line will have to think about it, if only for a second.

True story: Shortly after I came up with the line, I used it on my step-mom, a Hillary supporter (natch). She pointed out that it does point left, if you are looking at it from the perspective of the person wearing the button (as she was at the time). She was laughing at the weakness of her own defense.

I gave her the obvious rebuttal: "So, Hillary points left only if you naval gaze?"

Nice detail about the Marchers!

The scope of the Koch's activities are mind-blowing, reaching into more than just the GOP.

I agree, maybe I should've come up with a better way to express that than "and related organizations"? But the GOP is central in that complex, when it comes to the important role of getting candidates into office. And for all they can exert influence elsewhere, it doesn't seem like "the party of Trump" will be interested in electing the Kochs' preferred candidates.

(Leaving them to do what? Build up the Libertarians? Try to take over the Democrats?)

I still think that matters way more to the Koch's than whether campaign finance reform laws end up in a pre- or post-2010 state.

Exactly! That's what gives the line punch!

I agree it's evocative, it's just that what it evokes is, "Oh, you're an asshole!"

And for all they can exert influence elsewhere, it doesn't seem like "the party of Trump" will be interested in electing the Kochs' preferred candidates.

That's the confusion, I think. The Party has become the Party of the Koch's, of money. Trump is in line with the GOP, of course, but he is not beholden to money. Which is what the electorate have been craving since they joined the Tea Party.

Note I did not say "since they started the Tea Party." According to Mayer's very well researched history, money has been trying to start a Tea Party for decades; only now has it caught. Trump is the ideal TPer for the electorate, but not for the moneyed founders.

I agree it's evocative, it's just that what it evokes is, "Oh, you're an asshole!"

I can't argue with facts. ;-)

Strangely enough I think you nailed it (here comes the "but monkey") However, as usual I think you have overstated the problem. On the other hand you may well be spot on, but it doesn't really affect the average person like me; so I honestly don't care. Also, you need to consider (and you probably have)that the average American really isn't all that enamored with FDR's policies; if for no other reason than the reason you like to suggest that the country is right leaning.
I think you are correct (if I infer correctly) that the Millennials will end up changing the direction of the country since they have "no future"...fortunately from my stand point, I won't be around to see it. I could go on, and I'd love to; but this is more than I've done in a long time, and of course I'd rather talk than type.
By the way, how are your potatoes doing this year?

Also, you need to consider (and you probably have) that the average American really isn't all that enamored with FDR's policies; if for no other reason than the reason you like to suggest that the country is right leaning.

Whoa, there, Sunshine! Those are some scattershot assertions! Let's break things down.

...the average American really isn't all that enamored with FDR's policies....

Really? Um, no. To get a handle on what the average American feels, yes, you have to ask. And on FDR's policies, perhaps that average would feel negative. After all, plenty of ink and sound bite time has been wasted blasting him.

When you ask about the programs he started, though, things change drastically. Social Security is really, really liked, for one example. Same with unemployment insurance and the kind of banking reform he pushed. Heck, once you plug actual numbers into the reality of the program, estate taxes are also favored. Even though some of that stuff has been repealed (like the Glass-Steagall Act), it's still popular.

That might not be the case in your neighborhood, but as I've said before, that burg is far from "average." ;-)

...the reason you like to suggest that the country is right leaning.

And when did I claim that?

Politics has leaned far right; the people have not. If anything, this new group of kids will lean waaaay to the left, and that has surprising little to do with their fate currently.

I've listened to lots of interviews of people who were, through their long careers, pretty much ignored. Young people are now flocking to their lectures. We're talking about socialist economists, radical agricultural professionals, public banking advocates. This group really supported Bernie, and they are far more upset at the Dems for fast-tracking Hillary than I am.

And don't sell your prospects for sticking around and seeing this new world. Not many people I know went up rooftops in their 70s!

And the potatoes are thriving, albeit under a thick recent cover of morning glory. Stew weather is near.

On FDR I will recant, at least up to a point...I have a lot of opinions on SS, some of which we might even possibly agree; however that is a topic I am way too lazy to discuss with typing ;).
While you are correct, young people are becoming more left leaning, on the other hand "boomers" are becoming more conservative, and as badly as we have messed up the country, it will be a few more years before we are no longer the 'ruling' class.
It is the nature of things for the younger generation to be more liberal (partially due to the fact they are ruled more by emotions while people tend to get more pragmatic as they get older) Think about it, it is often said Reagan couldn't be nominated by today's republicans, but what I think is glossed over is Kennedy couldn't make the democratic ticket.
The bottom line is so much of philosophy and belief is predicated (or perhaps merely reinforced)by the people we hang with, listen to, and even where we live :D
At any rate, hopefully, this afternoon I will have the time to read your discussion with 133tminion.

  • 1
?

Log in