George Lakoff written summary for Progressives and Berniecrats

george-lakoff-260DRAFT FOR COMMENT.  Sent to George Lakoff thru his website Nov 29.  No response yet

Comments, corrections invited. Conversation welcome. Okay to use this or parts of it for your own purposes, no restrictions.

Short, clear, Thanksgiving, 2016, summary of George Lakoff’s metaphor models and Conservative value hierarchy. Excellent 15 minute audio spoken by Lakoff himself here:

Lakoff podcast interviews over ten years are his most accessible presentations in my experience. Many videos of him speaking at his site here

I also bring in a few topics from closely related fields apparently unknown to Lakoff, which superbly support his thesis.

This summary DRAFT for COMMENT is editing-revising-paraphrasing of a recent, Nov. 2016(?) online article by Laoff, “Understanding Trump” from

Where not too intrusive, my blatant additions are in [brackets].

Lakoff: There is a lot being written and spoken about Trump by intelligent and articulate commentators whose insights I respect.

As a longtime researcher in cognitive science and linguistics, I bring a perspective to understanding Trump phenomena.

Many people seem to enjoy this perspective. More than half a million people have read my books. Google Scholar reports academics writing in scholarly journals have cited my works over 100,000 times.

Still you probably won’t hear what I have to say in the NY Times, nor hear it from corporate political commentators. You will also not hear it yet from Democratic candidates or party strategists.

I am writing now because I see many people questioning what happened Nov. 8th. My experience answers for what happened do exist; what happened can be understood and positive responses can be crafted, need to be composed and articulated by many of us. Positive responses to Trumpism are not going to come from conventional corporate political commentators. The answers and positive responses are coming from basic research in cognitive and linguistic sciences. It’s time to move these new rhetorical tools more into the center of public political discourse.

My apologies if the answers available don’t fit into a Tweet or a 650-word op-ed. Maybe you can communicate these ideas more economically than I can.

The outline we’ll follow is:
– First an updated version of who is supporting Trump and why,
– Then why real facts and policy details are tertiary or irrelevant to Trump and his supporters,
– Lastly, how Democratic campaigns can communicate better.

All these things need to be understood if we are to transform a Trump presidency and/or replace him with something better, not worse.

Who Supports Trump and Why

Why and how did Trump become the Republican nominee for President? Various theories for this exist:

– People are angry and he channels their anger and speaks to their feeling of being dishonored,

– Congress is discredited and dysfunctional; people want a non-politician.

Both theories may be true–but why? What is the rhetorical mechanism operating which created Trump’s “success”? [What is the meaning and value people see in Trump the rest of us view so differently? Why do many personally identify with Trump, in spite of his obvious flaws and gaffs, when the majority of us do not identify with him?] Why Trump, why not [a less obvious, more subtle representative of Dysfunctional Masculinity]? … What is going on?

Answers exist but to hear them we need a clearer rhetorical context than corporate media provides the public.

In the 1900’s, I wanted to answer a question; in terms of cognition, does any overall Unconscious Pattern exist to the policy positions of conservatives and progressives? If I could identify these Patterns, this would explain what enables each group’s policies to hang together.

Take conservatism:
-What connects being against abortion–with being pro-guns?

– What does owning guns have to do with–denying global warming?

– How does being anti-government fit with–wanting a stronger military?

– How can you be pro-life and–for the death penalty?

Let’s admit these are basic questions, few are asking them, fewer have coherent answers.

Now let’s look at Progressives. They have different views. What connects their policy positions? How do their views hang together? For an Unconscious Pattern to be valid it must apply equally to both Regressives and Progressives.

Two views of “how a family should work”
What I found was what holds each set of views together as a whole, is a subconscious model of ‘how a family should work.’

Conservatives have their subconscious metaphor-model for ‘how a family should work.’

Progressives have a very different subconscious metaphor-model for ‘how a family should work.’

Why we ascribe family metaphors to all larger tribes

We all tend to understand ourself, our neighborhood, nation and the world in terms of how our family of origin operated.

[Q: Wait, I don’t believe this. I view my city, state and nation by the way I was taught in middle school, high school and college.

[A: Yes, you do–but only from the neck-up. From the neck-down, how you view the world is highly colored by your peak experiences, good and bad, each of us had, from birth to age three. Few people ever escape the “conditioning” and “programming” of interpersonal interactions–good and bad–between birth and age three. See To Learn More below for the research.

[There is no other easy way to think about tribes larger than you family in terms other than “thru the lens” of your own tribe of origin.]

In other words, subconsciously we all view ourselves, our neighborhood, nation and the world in terms of the family we grew up in.

[Q: If this is so, how does anyone ever progress from older Conservative family model to the kinder-gentler Progressive family model?

[A: Not everyone takes up the work of re-examining their family mythology and metaphors. This only occurs individually. Unless we have consciously and deliberately done the work to examine and upgrade our family of origin metaphors and mythology, the Scripts People Live; then, we remain stuck with whatever family of origin myths we grew up with.

[In other words, each person views the national political conversation thru the tinted glasses of their early family experience. We uncover and expose these biased views by means of metaphor and contrasting metaphors. ]

In the most familiar language, we are first governed in our family of origin. Hence, we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of our family.

Family metaphors permeate our national discourse

Every hear of the “founding fathers”? Ever hear a speech about sending our sons and daughters to war? Ever hear of “homeland security”?

Conservative and progressive moral worldviews are based on two different experiences of family life. I call these the Nurturant Parenting family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative-regressive).

Character of Strict Father families
In the strict father family, father knows best [and is honored far and above Mother or Wise, Accepting grandparent (mentor archetype)]. Father knows right from wrong. Father has ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse are safe and do what he says. Within the family tribe, what Father says is gospel.

[Q: Why? Where does this come from?

[A: Physical survival. Imagine Inuit families growing up in rural Alaska in the 1900s; and, imagine families growing up in rural Africa now. Think survival. Imagine how child safety and obeying Father’s rules and restriction was a life and death matter. ]

Many conservative women accept this worldview. They support masculine authority. They align with conveying strict discipline to children and in all areas of family life they are in charge of. The good news? Children often grow up understanding and embodying admirable self-discipline. Family-based moral worldviews run deep.

In the strict father family, when children disobey, it is Father’s moral duty to punish them painfully. The unconscious model here is to avoid punishment, the child will obey or conform (do what is right). [If you know something of NLP or Unconscious Patterns, you’ll recognize Away From and Pain Avoidant strategies here.

[Conversely, when the child “does what is right,” obeys, conforms, the child is praised and rewarded.

[Not many conservative families will know much about modern K-12 classroom management. The ultimate uselessness of the praise-punishment-reward system of child discipline was proved conclusively in the 1980s-1990s. This news has yet to circulate widely outside of K-12 teacher-training circles. See To Learn More at the end. ]

In a strict father family, in the face of threats to physical survival, what is the greatest danger to children? That the child will simply do what feels good and disobey the Father’s rules.

Threats to physical survival in the Industrial West are minuscule compared to more primitive cultures. Nevertheless, Conservatives transpose their responses and rules about physical survival to the new world of business and commerce. [Economic and business survival is subconsciously equated with physical survival. ]

Survival in business and commerce means learning self-discipline, learning physical discipline so children become internally strong, so they can get and hold a good-paying job; and therefore, survive and prosper in the world of business and commerce.

Q: What if the children don’t prosper? What if the children can’t find work?

A: The children’s success or failure reflects directly and primarily on the Father. He has failed.

The Father has two choices. he can re-examine his assumptions, rules and models. Or he can blame his children for their failure to succeed and thrive.

Which choice do you think takes less energy?

If the Father believes he has done his job adequately, he feels justified to blame the children for their failure to succeed and thrive.

In fewer words: the children are not disciplined. If the children can’t find a job, they lack discipline.

Moral aspect of worldly failure

A moral aspect is very active her yet rarely articulated. If the sons and daughters grow up and fail economically, either Father has failed or the children were not moral, not self-disciplined, lazy, worthless; and so, deserve their poverty.

Physical survival thinking transposed to economic survival thinking, shows up endlessly in conservative politics. The poor are seen as lazy and undeserving. Conversely, the rich are moral, deserve their wealth and deserve to keep it.

[At this point another Big Idea is very useful here, the contrast between Selfishness and Service.

[Here too we carefully define terms; this again another invisible archetypal contrast.

[This is a contrast between two paths of personal growth, between two paradigms of service.

[One idea is Service primarily and ultimately to self alone.

[The other idea is service to self first and then to others.

[The danger of Service to Self is “selfishness.”

[The danger of Service to Others, even if you put yourself first is, “over-giving.”

[These will help us navigate Lakoff’s contrasting family metaphors more easily.]

Two views of “responsibility”

In a strict Father paradigm, responsibility is primarily personal responsibility. We’re always talking survival here, whether it be physical or economic or moral.

In an extreme strict Father paradigm (towards selfishness) what you become, what you make of your self, is only up to you. Society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others. Others, each person, is responsible for themselves.

[This point of view is highly aligned with Island Man, how “each man is an island,” the take-away most people receive from John Donne’s poem.]

In an extreme strict Father paradigm (towards selfishness) social responsibility is not a value, not a benefit.

[Q: What about “charity begins at home”? Isn’t this “family values”?

[A: Yes. Lakoff’s genius is in delineating two contrasting, opposite family-tribal views. Polarities are always easiest to see first in black and white.

[Work with his metaphors over time, you begin to see the gray areas. The Progressive-positive side of “family values” comes to light. So too do the regressive-negative side of over-giving. Let’s keep in mind “traditional family values” has positive conservative and positive progressive interpretations–and these differ strikingly, according to Lakoff’s two metaphors.]

[Readers may enjoy reviewing Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming:” “…the best (people) lack all conviction…” Poem is here ]

Winning a battle of insults

The legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

Which family metaphor do you guess embraces this sentiment?

In a world view governed by personal responsibility and self-discipline, those who win, deserve to win.

When electoral competition is seen as a battle, insults which stick are seen as victories. Consider Trump’s statement John McCain is not a war hero. The reasoning: McCain got shot down. Heroes are winners. They defeat big bad guys. They don’t get shot down. People who get shot down, beaten up, and stuck in a cage are losers, not winners.

Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Simple, he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game because he has no shame. If you ignore shame as feedback, you can be completely merciless.

In strict Father eyes, this makes Trump “King of the Hill” who therefore deserves to be the winning candidate.

[Trump is the apotheosis of turning back the clock of history 1500 years, returning, regressing to “force majeur.” This was the ruling political ethic at the time before King Arthur in England, 500AD. Today we know “force Majeur” as “might makes right.”

[Those who think we should go back to “might makes right” misunderstand history, don’t imagine what else they would have to give up. Before “might makes right” there was no “rule of law.” Before “might makes right” there was only King of the Hill, dog-eat-dog, “anything goes,” “all’s fair in love and war.”

[If you like the values of the long-running TV show, Law and Order, then you are NOT for “might makes right.” Why? Because you are FOR the “rule of laws.” You agree with Socrates; even tho some of man’s laws are foolish, I’d rather live with man’s laws than without any laws at all.

[Without the Rule of Laws, there is only mob mentality, the Klu Klux Clan making and enforcing their own laws wherever they can get away with it.

[In Might makes Right, Rule of Law be damned, those who have dominate now should continue to dominate–because they deserve it. If you or your family has dominated for generations; then, tradition is also to be honored. Can you see this is all pre-“rule of law” thinking?]

What’s your Moral Hierarchy?

The antique logic of Strict father spills over into the moral sphere: authority is justified by and rests upon morality. In a well-ordered world, an established moral hierarchy exists, can exist and should exist. The moral hierarchy of the strict Father has the force, moral authority and precedent of tradition, going back a few thousand years. The hierarchy is:

– God above Man,
– Man above Nature,
– The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak),
– The Rich above the Poor,
– Employers above Employees,
– Adults above Children,
– Western culture above all other cultures,
– USA above other countries.

But wait! there’s more.

– Men above women,
– Whites above Non-whites,
– Christians above non-Christians,
– Straights above Gays.

This moral hierarchy of the strict Father is heard from virtually all Republican presidential candidates.

On the whole, conservative policies flow from this strict father moral hierarchy.

What purpose does a moral hierarchy serve?
People want to see themselves as doing right not wrong. Your moral worldview is part of your self-definition, your identity, your self-concept—who you most are most deeply as an adult personality [Governing Vessel in acupuncture].

Your moral worldview templates for you what the world should be like, your preferred expectations.

When it isn’t that way, we become frustrated and angry. [Hence all the feelings Progressive have after Nov. 9th, 2016.]

Important variations exist as well.

Gray area between Regressives and Progressives

A certain amount of wiggle room exists in the strict father worldview. For example, a major split exists among:

1) white Evangelical Christians,
2) laissez-fair free market conservatives, and
3) pragmatic conservatives not bound by evangelical beliefs.

White Evangelicals
Whites using a strict father worldview AND who are religious, tend toward Evangelical Christianity. Why? Because God, in [Old Testament] Evangelical Christianity, is the Ultimate Strict Father. Follow His commandments and you go to heaven. Defy His commandments and you burn in hell for all eternity.

If you are a sinner and want to go to heaven, you can be ‘born again” by declaring your fealty by choosing His son, Jesus Christ, as your personal Savior. If the child repents, re-aligns and conforms, the Father accepts the Prodigal Son back Home. [Prodigal Son is a New Testament parable appropriated to Old Testament, Strict Father interpretation.]

Conservative Christians align with Evangelical churches. Whether the chicken came first or the egg came first is true here too. Individuals may be conservative because they were raised in a conservative evangelical church.

Notice how conservative Evangelical Christianity is centered around family life: Focus on the Family and constant reference to “family values.” These are all employed to support evangelical strict father values.

In strict father morality, the father controls sexuality and reproduction, who marries who, etc. In states where conservative churches have political control, there are laws requiring parental and spousal notification in the case of proposed abortions.

Evangelicals organize politically. They exert control over a great many local political races. Thus Republican candidates mostly have to go along with the evangelicals if they want to be nominated and win local elections.

Pragmatic Conservatives
Pragmatic conservatives, on the other hand, may have no religious orientation at all. Instead, they care primarily about their own personal authority, not the authority of the church or Christ, or God. They want to be strict fathers in their own [nuclear family] domains, with authority primarily over their own lives.

Thus, a young, unmarried conservative — male or female —may want to have sex without worrying about marriage. They may need access to contraception, need advice about sexually transmitted diseases, need information about cervical cancer, and so on. If a conservative female becomes pregnant and there is no possibility or desire for marriage, abortion can be openly considered and discussed.

Trump is a pragmatic conservative, par excellence. He knows a lot of Republican voters are like him in their pragmatism. Trump likes Planned Parenthood because plenty of young, married-unmarried pragmatic conservatives want what Planned Parenthood offers — cheap and confidential access to contraception, cervical cancer prevention, and sex ed.

Similarly, young or middle-aged pragmatic conservatives want to maximize their own wealth. They don’t want to be saddled with financial burdens of caring for their parents. Social Security and Medicare relieve them of most of those responsibilities. So Trump wants to keep Social Security and Medicare.

Laissez-faire Free Marketeers
Establishment conservative policies are shaped as much or more from another direction. From the political power of those seeking maximally laissez-faire free markets, where wealthy people and corporations set market rules in their favor with minimal government regulation and enforcement.

Free Marketeers who lean towards selfishness see taxation not as investment in publicly provided resources for all citizens, but as government taking their earnings, their private property; and through government programs, giving the money to those who don’t deserve it.

This is the source of establishment Republicans’ anti-tax and ‘shrink government’ views. This version of conservatism is quite happy with outsourcing government to private firms. This version of conservatism is quite happy with increasing corporate profits by sending manufacturing and services abroad where labor is cheap. The consequence of well-paying jobs leaving America and wages driven down here does not concern them. Since they depend on cheap imports, they don’t want high import tariffs.

Donald Trump does not make products abroad to import here and mark up at a profit. As a developer, he builds hotels, casinos, office buildings, golf courses. He may build them abroad with cheap labor but he doesn’t import them.

He recognizes most small business owners in America are more like him: dry cleaners, pizzerias, diners, plumbers, hardware stores, gardeners, contractors, car washers, and professionals like architects, lawyers, doctors, and nurses. To them high tariffs don’t look like a problem.

Many business people are pragmatic conservatives. They like government power when it works for them. Take eminent domain. Establishment Republicans see it as an abuse by government — government taking my private property.

Conservative real estate developers like Trump conveniently ignore a big paradox. The real estate development business depends on eminent domain so homes and small businesses in areas they want to develop can be flattened for the sake of new development plans. All they have to do is get local government officials to go along, with campaign contributions and the promise of an increase in local tax dollars helping to acquire eminent domain rights. Trump points to Atlantic City, where he built his casino using eminent domain to get the property.

If businesses have to pay for their employees’ health care benefits, Trump wants them to pay as little as possible, to maximize profits for businesses in general. He would therefore want health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to charge as little as possible. To increase competition, he wants insurance companies to offer plans nationally, avoiding the state-run exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. The ACA does not exist to increase business profits. It exists to maximize citizen health coverage, and help low-income people get coverage.

Trump does however want to keep the mandatory feature of ACA. Establishment conservatives hate this. They see it as government overreach, forcing people to buy a product. For Trump, however, the mandatory feature for individuals increases the insurance pool and brings down costs for businesses.

Why Trump’s Lack of Policy Detail Doesn’t Matter

I recently heard a brilliant and articulate Clinton surrogate argue how Trump has presented no policy plans for increasing jobs, increasing economics growth, improving education, gaining international respect, etc. This is the basic Clinton campaign argument. Hillary has the experience, the policy know-how, she can get things done, it’s all on her website. Trump has no specific policy plans on his website [as of Nov 1, 2016 Trump’s website copy amounted to only slogans and promises.]

What Hillary’s campaign says is true–and irrelevant.

Trump supporters and other radical Republican extremists could not care less, and for a good reason. Their job is to impose their view of strict father morality in all areas of life. They subconsciously see themselves in a Holy War for their values and their way of life. [To the degree conservatives and Regressives feel this way, behave this way, this is why the USA is locked in a death struggle with its shadow-self, the Islamic jihadists and Taliban. What do Islamic terrorists want? To impose their view of strict father morality in all areas of life. Islamic Regressives and USA Regressives are more similar than different–and cannot admit this.]

If Regressives have control of Congress, and the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they think they can achieve their desired cultural hegemony.

They don’t need to name policies. Republicans already have hundreds of policies ready to go. They just need to be in complete power, that’s all.

How Can Democrats respond constructively and effectively?
First, don’t think of an elephant. Remember not to repeat false conservative claims and then rebut them with facts. You simply reinforce the untruths.

Instead, go positive. Give a positive truthful framing which undermines untrue claims. Use facts to support positively-framed truth. Use repetition.

Second, start with values, not policies, not facts not numbers. Say what you believe–and haven’t been saying.

For example, Nurturant Parenting is built on taking care of your self first SO THAT you can then serve others.

We frequently compress progressive values into one word: empathy. Indeed, Nurturant-Parenting-values-citizens care about other citizens. The value of empathy works through government to provide public resources for all, both businesses and individuals.

Use history. This is how America started. The public resources used by businesses were not only roads and bridges, but public education, a national bank, a patent office, courts for business cases, interstate commerce support, and of course the criminal justice system. From the beginning, the Private Sector, private lives and private enterprise, depended on Public Resources.

Over time those resources have included sewers, water and electricity, research universities and research support: computer science (via the NSF), the internet (ARPA), pharmaceuticals and modern medicine (the NIH), satellite communication (NASA and NOA), and GPS systems and cell phones (the Defense Department).

Private enterprise and private life utterly depend on public resources. Have you ever said this? Elizabeth Warren has. Almost no other public figures.

Stop defending “the government.” Talk about the public, the people, Americans, the American people, public servants, and good government. Catch them being good; praise them for it. Take back “freedom,” link it to public resources which provide freedom in private enterprise and private life.

Conservatives wish to privatize all commons and all services; they wish to eliminate funding for most public resources, the “commons.” The contribution of public resources to our freedoms cannot be overstated. Speak; spell this out for the uninformed, the forgetful and the brainwashed.

Include the police. Effective respectful policing is a public resource. Chief David O. Brown of the Dallas Police got it right. Training, community policing, knowing the people you protect. Don’t expect too much of the police. Citizens have a responsibility to provide funding so police don’t have to do jobs which should be done by others.

Unions need to go on the offensive. Unions are instruments of freedom — freedom from tyrannical servitude. Working people are profit creators for the employers. As such they deserve a fair share of the profits and respect and acknowledgement. Say it. Spell it out.

Can the public create jobs? Of course. Fixing infrastructure will create jobs. this provides more public resources which private lives and businesses depend on. Public resources to create more public resources. Freedom creates opportunity which creates more freedom.

Third, keep out of nasty exchanges and attacks. Keep out of shouting matches. One can speak powerfully without shouting. Obama sets the pace: Civility, values, positivity, good humor, and real empathy are powerful. Calmness and empathy in the face of fury are powerful.

Bill Clinton won because he oozed empathy, with his voice, his eye contact, and his body. It wasn’t his superb ability as a policy wonk, but the empathy he projected and inspired.

Find your value proposition

Values come first, facts and policies follow, in the service of values. Facts matter. Progressives misunderstand facts when they misconstrue facts as the underlying reason for a policy. Take poverty. The underlying rationale for policy to combat poverty is NOT there are too many poor people. Rather the underlying policy is ALWAYS a clear value proposition. In the richest country in the world, we can afford to share more of our wealth with those most in need of support. Empathy. Find your value proposition. Articulate it. Over and over.

Give up identity politics

Give up identity politics. No more women’s issues, black issues, Latino issues. Their issues are all real, and need public discussion. Yet they all fall under freedom issues, human issues. [Just talk to working people as a whole. That’s how Trump won his electoral victory. Let’s remember Trump used John Edwards “Two Americas” to win. Bernie Sanders used the “Two Americas” to mobilize millions. Hillary used “Father knows best; I’ll take care of you” and lost].

Address poor whites! Appalachian and rust belt whites deserve your attention as much as anyone else. Don’t surrender their fate to Trump, who will just increase their suffering.

Why is JFK’s, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” immortal? Because it points to the values of empathy, devotion, love, pride in our country, free choice–and–taking on responsibility beyond our own self–the maturing-up we all must do sooner or later.

Be prepared. To stand up calmly and effectively to Regressives you can–and you have to–learn how to use rhetorical akido. These metaphors and linguistic tactics are the rhetorical Progressive martial arts.


1) Lakoff’s original piece goes on for another 2,600 words. I didn’t feel his tertiary ideas were useful for an accessible summary of his main ideas. His auxiliary ideas can be read here

2) Lakoff’s divide between Strict Father and Nurturant Parenting is echoed in the difference between Old and New Testament in the Bible and pro-slavery~anti-slavery forces 1850-1860 in the USA. Michael Hayes at began the most current discussion of Old Testament vs. New Testament as an archetypal-mythological contrast.
George Lakoff is Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics Emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley. His most recent book is The ALL NEW Don’t Think of an Elephant! His previous books on politics and social issues are Moral Politics(1996, 2002), Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2004), Whose Freedom? (2008), The Political Mind (2008), and The Little Blue Book, with Elisabeth Wehling (2012). The third edition of Moral Politics will be published in September in time for the 2016 election. His website is Interviews and videos

To Learn More on related topics
1950s psychologist George Kelly (and Piaget) on our Naive Scientist

Scripts People Live by Claude Steiner

Why We Pick the Mates We Do by Anne Teachworth, also on YouTube.

Alfie Kohn on praise-reward-punishment

The Quality School. The Quality Teacher, etc. by William Glasser, MD

Positive Classroom Instruction by Fred Jones.

Positive Discipline by Jane Nelson A modern re-stating of Rudolf Dreikurs’ wisdom on classroom management, child development and child discipline.

– – – – – – –
Health Intuitive and author Bruce Dickson writes on Best Practices in Energy Medicine (30 books)
Another blog:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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