Skip to content

Thoughts on why Lenin statue should not be removed.

August 17, 2017


Thought-provoking political art forces us to engage in civic discourse and prods us to grapple with the discomfort of irony. Unlike the Confederacy statues throughout our nation built to formally honor those in that battle of ideas, this statue is distinctly not showcased in Fremont to celebrate the murderous, painful regime. It is instead installed as a testament to its defeat and the victory of open ideas through the medium and sometimes painful juxtaposition of art itself.

The statue was, simply, installed with artistic intent to show that our very ability to install political art is the triumph of democracy over tyranny. The Wikipedia entry thoughtfully embraces this background argument.

It is important that it is neither a somber, serious memorial to the victims of war nor a shrine to the man. This does not mean it does not evoke pain in those who suffered. It certainly understandably may. Like millions of others, my family left Poland in 1924 following attacks on Jewish villages and made their way to Ellis Island because of the viciousness of the era.

Art can be offensive and painful, but it can also bring us alive with curiosity, wonder, knowledge. Installing a political statue of a man and regime that would never allow installation of political statues of opponents is a symbolic representation of the victory of democracy and freedom over oppression. And of the role of art itself.

The emotion surfaced by art does not always leave us feeling positive or safe. But the freedom and ability to decorate the statue of the enemy of freedom of ideas in political signs should.

Your partner in service,



Our penchant for goodness rises

August 16, 2017


As the days pass since President Trump effectively unleashed a full throated, raw defense of neo-Nazi, anti-semitic and racist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, I find myself deeply reflective about the magnitude of the implications for our country.

How do we make this a teachable moment for young people and our broader community? How do we embrace the good in our nation and leverage this forcing function to tackle the undercurrent of prejudice in constructive ways? How do we recapture the narrative of good rather than evil? What can we say and do to add a productive, positive voice to the lack of civility represented in our president’s approach?

More than anything, we can speak out and reject the normalization of hate. Given that anti-semitism is central to the narrative currently unfolding, religious leaders at all levels carry a particular obligation not to remain silent. And there will come a time when the silence of inaction from elected officials from Congress to the state legislatures to local government will also be judged by history. The presidents’ party members hold a particularly serious obligation to speak out and reject the policies and sentiment behind his words.

We live in a time when progressive politics in a secular city is often uncomfortable with public displays of religion or spirituality. Still, my private religious conviction as a Jew and not merely my public role as a legislator motivates me to speak out against the embrace of neo-Nazi protesters by the president.

At a democratic institutional level, we can embrace the power of our constitutional republic and the role of our state.  Our government is based on an intricate and magnificent web of interdependencies that are the checks and balance of power. We live in a time when a one-party federal government is led by an unfit president. At no time in recent memory are we more dependent upon the broader system of checks and balances.

The balance of power is not merely between the federal legislative, executive and judicial branches. Under the 10th Amendment, power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. I have long been a champion of the 10th Amendment on numerous levels, and now more than ever we need its rigor.

The checks on this president must come from the people directly, state governments, a free and independent media. The collective voices of citizens and the power of the system of checks and balances together remind us of our penchant for goodness.

We must all continue to explore ways that Washington State can be a light among our nation that rejects the policies and values espoused by the president.

We are so much more as a nation than what we’ve become.

Your thoughts and ideas are welcome and deeply appreciated.

Your partner in service,



In defense of local levies: More than money, they connect us to ourselves.

May 26, 2017


school image

The State Legislature’s 2017 overtime sessions have moved into ‘warning light’ territory. The debate over how to fully fund our state’s paramount duty of public education is finally consuming the full energy of legislators and testing the patience of the public. As the pressure intensifies, my fear is that in the rush to reach a deal, any deal, the innocent victim may be the lowly, chastised, unglamorous local levy.

I believe in the value of local levies. I argued in a February of 2015 blog post  about funding models in Massachusetts and other states and that we must maintain a high level of local engagement in our educational finance system. Local levies bring that connection to life.

Just because Olympia has abused local levies by supplanting local dollars for state obligations does not mean that local levies should be eliminated or even severely reduced. The bad actor in this deal is Olympia, not local communities. We can eliminate an overreliance on local levies to fund basic education by making sure local dollars cannot be used for basic education. Period.

At a philosophical and ideological level, I believe that if we eliminate meaningful roles for local levies in funding our schools, we risk losing part of the soul of what makes communities shine in unique ways. By in effect disconnecting businesses, parents, teachers, students from a financial relationship with the local elementary school down the block, we disconnect ourselves from our own children’s education.

In my view, we will one day come to regret–deeply and seriously– a highly concentrated, top down, state-centric funding model for our 1.1 million school kids. It is ironic that since 1889 our state’s strong constitutional language about funding education has not led to a higher level of funding than other states. States with locally funded systems generally lead to higher quality educational outcomes.

The Seattle Times argues in a recent editorial that local levies should pay for sports uniforms and playground equipment and other such needs.  I understand that viewpoint but believe it misses the depth of the deeper nuance and appreciation of the intangible connection that local levies represent in small towns and big cities alike. They help us embrace a meaningful local contribution to our local schools and, in turn, our children’s future. By outsourcing almost the entire financial relationship of education away from our hometowns to state government, we sanitize our connection and divorce ourselves from local needs. If levies are solely about sports uniforms and playground equipment, we may find ourselves far removed from the fiduciary financial side of managing one of our most important public institutions.

The McCleary lawsuit’s ruling on local levies has been distorted.  The state Supreme Court does not call for the elimination of local levies. It calls for the elimination of the Legislature’s unconstitutional retreat from fully funding the paramount duty and hiding behind local levies to skip out on sending money from Olympia to 295 school districts.  It calls for an end to the state using local dollars to supplant what is obligated from Olympia. Because Olympia has failed to meet their obligations does not mean local communities should be prevented by Olympia from using additional local levies for non basic education needs that further strengthen local schools.

In allowing local levies to continue, there is no question that there must be rock solid, firm guardrails and categorical restrictions against using local levy dollars to fund basic education. We cannot allow a McCleary 2.0. We cannot allow local dollars to supplement basic education teacher compensation. But an authentic partnership between local and state funding is not inconstant with a modern, 21st Century model nor is it unconstitutional.

Go back to the original spirit of local levies: Local dollars raised locally to meet additional local needs. Those needs go far beyond playground equipment. A robust state-funded ‘basic education’ should mean a high quality educational system that makes us proud as a state. But a well funded top-down, state-centric model is not inconsistent with allowing local communities to define additional needs for themselves. That may include additional enhancements such as additional tutoring, mentoring, technology, arts, music, civics, weekend classes, travel to cultural institutions, summer learning, weekend programming for high risk students and, yes, sports uniforms. Current debate of allowing local levies of between 10% in the GOP plan and 24% in the Democratic plan misses the more profound philosophical point. The numbers are arbitrary. The philosophy is not.

As long as the state maintains it’s obligations to fully fund basic education, and as long as we maintain absolute, strict and unequivocal prohibitions against the use of local levy funds to supplement basic education and teacher salaries, why should there be any limits on the total amount of local levies that local communities can invest in their schools?

If the Legislature eliminates the ability of local communities to adopt local school levies beyond the state’s basic education funding, many communities will actively and aggressively move to invest additional dollars through local community levies to supplement our children but it will be done outside of the structure of our educational system.  It will be less accountable, transparent and will ultimately lead to an even more balkanized system.  And it will be of the state’s making.

As we restructure our educational finance system, we must not be swept away by the short term political narrative and pretend that 147 legislators in Olympia can effectively manage 1.1 million school kids in 295 unique local districts with robotic uniformity.  We must both fully fund basic education from Olympia and allow additional local investment that meets local needs locally.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,






A fleeting love affair with state takeover of local gov’t control

March 3, 2017


The Washington State Senate engaged in a substantive policy debate recently about the complex issue of safe injection sites, a response to addiction that is being considered in Seattle and King County.  It was a sincerely non partisan public policy dialogue that surfaced legitimate concerns about safety, community, medical care and society’s evolving response to addiction.

Once it was time to vote, however, a troubling theme emerged that shows a new trend of the Republican Party: a predisposition for the state to pre-empt local government authority.  Senate Bill 5223 pre-empts the ability of local governments to experiment with safe injection sites.  The bill passed 26-23 with one Democrat joining all 25 Republicans to pass the measure.

The rigorous intellectual policy battle in our country over control of policy decisions between federal, state and local governments is a highlight of our constitutional republic. The initial tension articulated by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson was not a modest veneer of philosophy.

My colleague Rep. Matt Manweller and I discussed the relationship between federal and state governments and the 10th Amendment recently on TVW’s Inside Olympia. It’s an inevitable political debate at every level of government and generally where you stand depends upon where you sit.

In recent years, in a twist of history, Republican allies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have boldly embraced state pre-emption as a way to halt progressive cities from enacting legislation.  The New York Times highlighted this political trend as a nod to industry’s economic interests.

Despite that national momentum, I am surprised that there are no less than 16 major bills in the state Senate this year that pre-empt local government authority on issues ranging from homelessness to education, minimum wage to rent control, housing to utilities, telecommunications to income tax.  It has not traditionally been a thesis of political life in Washington. I don’t know how this number compares to previous years or to times when Democrats held the majority, but it seems on the surface to be a full scale change in strategy for a party that historically held a belief that ‘the government closest to the people governs best.’

A political case can likely be made that some of the pre-emption bills are driven in part by a visceral response to Seattle City Council action or citizen activism.  The city’s embrace of a $15 minimum wage, paid family and sick leave and other initiatives goes against the literal and figurative GOP platform as well as the broader business community. On the other side, a legitimate case may also be made that the shift toward a new Republican embrace of local pre-emption is linked to frustration over the statewide impacts of the Growth Management Act, a policy that has repercussions on rural areas that may not be fully apparent to people living in dense urban environments.  If it’s good enough for Democrats to force the GMA on Republican rural areas, so goes the thinking, than it should be good enough for Democrats on more city-driven issues such as homelessness, taxation and labor standards.

To highlight the Senate shift in policy and strategy, many of the most conservative members seem to be the thought leaders of the state pre-emption trend. In some areas, of course, state pre-emption makes rational sense so it is not inherently good or evil in and of itself.  But the trend is clear and strong under today’s leadership.

My view is that the state should look at pre-emption with a deep sense of reservation over the long haul. Local control over local issues spurs innovation, experimentation and exploration of new ideas.  Even when I am sympathetic to a specific policy, such as my view that rent control is not an economically sound policy, I try to default to a position that local communities should generally have control over their own decisions.

Through it all, as political trends come and go, and majorities change in Olympia, it’s hard not to suspect the current love affair with state pre-emption floating throughout the halls of Republican-controlled Senate will ultimately prove fleeting.

Your partner in service,






Facts, data, science: Environmental protection in today’s era

January 22, 2017


(Photo Credit: Tore Ofteness)

At a time when facts, data and science are under assault from the new government in Washington, D.C., much of our work in the state legislature is to protect the  independence of our state’s interests against an ideologically marauding federal government. At no time in recent generations has the need to protect the integrity of the 10th Amendment been more pronounced.

As the 2017 Legislative Session charges into full speed, in addition to our hands-on work of funding public education under the Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, we are focused on protecting our state against the frenzy of federal recklessness in health care, government transparency, trade, independent media and much more.

It is the work of protecting our state’s natural environment, a category that seems to fuel the anti-government passions of the Trump Administration, that calls out for independent, bipartisan reason and the support of checks and balances of governmental decision making.  We now find ourselves in a unique position where a concerted effort between the nominated Secretary of the Interior, Congressman Ryan Zinke, and a leading state champion of Donald Trump, my capable and indefatigable colleague Sen. Doug Ericksen, appear to be systematically targeting reversal of a decision to deny a permit to build the largest coal export terminal in North America near Bellingham, my hometown.

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected a sweeping application to build the coal export terminal they based their expansive decision on years of intense independent technical analysis, treaty authority dictated by the U.S. Constitution, virtually unanimous general public sentiment and rigorous scientific examination.

We are reminded today that such independent governmental decisions are, in fact, vulnerable to political influence. They are not an assured, inherent right of government.

As the lead Democrat on the state Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee, I am committed to a strong personal and professional working relationship with the majority party in the state Senate. I have high personal regard for the chair and the members of the committee.

Still, in my new role, I find myself reflecting upon the profound moral authority and policy record of our collective hero Dan Evans. The 91-year-old Republican is our state’s only three-term governor and is widely viewed as our premier living statesman. I have written about his influence on me personally and politically before.

In the Trump era, we cannot help but ask who will carry the bipartisan environmental mantle of the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt and Dan Evans? Whom among our Republican colleagues of today will hear the small, still voice within us, calling upon our state to responsibly ensure public policy protects our water, air and land for tomorrow’s generations?

If the independent, science-driven coal export decision can be reopened by a new political environment with legislation such as Senate Bill 5171, a bill to effectively strip the state critical review authority, each and every environmental decision is open to undue influence.

We must remind ourselves that facts, process and data matter.

In 2011 Pacific International Terminals (PIT) began the application process to build North America’s largest coal export terminal on the shores of Whatcom County, at a Lummi Nation historic village site and burial ground called Xwe’chieXen, with the 3,000’ x 107’ dock extending over a productive crab fishery. Lummi Nation has the largest fishing fleet on the West Coast and at its peak, employed over 2,000 tribal members.

State and federal agencies initiated a scoping process that ended in early 2013 and drew 124,889 comments from citizens, businesses, agencies, cities and tribes. Without exaggeration, nearly all were in opposition to the mega project.

On January 5th, 2015 the Lummi Nation requested the Army Corps deny the coal export terminal due to its adverse impacts on the Lummi Nation’s protected treaty fishing rights. The Lummi have harvested fish at this location since time immemorial and reserved the right to continue to do so in perpetuity when they signed the Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855 with the United States of America. The treaty was crafted, designed and written not by the Lummi Nation but by American officials of the day.

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are equal to federal law and take precedence over State constitutions, laws and judicial decisions. The treaty is a reservation of rights held by a sovereign people. It is impossible to defend the integrity of the 1st Amendment and the rest of our sacred constitution and not defend the entirety of the provisions making treaty rights equal.

The Army Corps thoroughly and meticulously reviewed 27 extensive exhibits and studies provided by the Lummi Nation and the well-funded proponent, including a Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study that showed a 76% increase in disruption to fishing if the terminal was built.

It is not a contrived assessment but one based on hard science.

The coal terminal included significant vessel traffic in our waters: 487 annual vessel calls using 318 single-Panamax ships and 169 Capesize ships (so named because they are too large to fit through the Panama Canal). That meant one massive ship would arrive or depart Cherry Point every 18 hours.

After careful consideration of all the information available over sixteen months, the Corps determined the project would in fact harm the Lummi Nation’s treaty right to harvest fish and therefore, on May 9th 2016, responsibly followed the letter and spirit of the law of the land and denied the permit. Shortly after, on June 6th, 2016, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied the permit application for an aquatic lease because the proponent had failed to get the required permit from the Army Corps. On January 3rd, 2017 the Commissioner of Public Lands changed the boundary of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve to remove a dock-shaped cut out retained in 2000 for the potential dock.

The state Department of Natural Resources received approximately 5,000 responses in favor of the critical boundary change. Ten letters, including one from the chair of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee, opposed the measure.

The data-driven Sightline Institute reminds us that global financial markets are rapidly and forcefully changing the face of the fossil fuel industrial complex.

The old times of massive subsidies from taxpayers, unquestioned permits and denial of treaty rights is over.

State and federal officials in Donald Trump’s shadow now have the power of the pen for a time. But they face a united, engaged and passionate public in our state against allowing Washington to be among the largest exporters of coal on our planet.

Your partner in service,


Sharing the burden of governing

December 6, 2016


Each year prior to the start of a new legislative session members of the House and Senate are allowed to ‘pre file’ legislation. Some legislators take advantage of the opportunity while most wait until the formal start of the session to officially file their legislative proposals. It’s hard not to notice a trend in that some colleagues use the opportunity to introduce ‘message’ bills that appeal to their base supporters while simultaneously enraging the opposition.  What is disappointing about the tactic, however, is that it shows that some colleagues do not appear to feel the weight of the burden of governing.

We simply do not have the luxury of tired political stereotypes of old.

At a time of enormous disequilibrium in our nation, we need to find a pathway toward reconciliation, collective ownership of the work of leadership, and alignment on tough policies from education to jobs to the environment. There are already 30 bills profiled. Some are innocuous but some are unsettling at best and politically incendiary at worst. From restricting the right of women to reproductive rights to reducing recent gains in gun safety and eliminate the state’s paramount duty to amply fund public education, some proposals seem to be introduced to elicit an aggressive reaction from Democrats. They are designed to show an invitation to battle not to dialogue. Many of them are particularly designed to enrage opponents more than engage in policy discussion.

One perennial bill would create a new state, Liberty, in the area of Eastern Washington. And each year our Democratic friends from Eastern Washington quietly and respectfully ask fellow Democrats not to take the bait and respond in such a way as to further inflame emotions of the sponsors. Yet year in and year out the bill resurfaces and is formally introduced and, to avoid inflaming relationships further, dies a quiet death in the legislative process. What would happen if majority Democrats in the House, for example, allowed the bill to move to the floor of the Chamber for a vote?  Is that really what the Republican leadership wants to say to the seven million people of Washington?

Imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and some urban Democrats pre-filed angry, resent-filled bills that unleashed cliches about urban versus rural narratives designed to stir the emotions of the other side and appeal to anger rather than calm dignity of governing. It is easy to imagine editorials statewide and the public at large condemning the move as undignified. And they would be right to do so.

With the incoming Trump Administration introducing unpredictability in financial markets, federal revenue sharing, global trade and more, we need a sense of unity and alignment as One Washington more than ever. We need a thoughtful recognition of our collective challenges. We need partnership not division to change the tone and tenure of the conversation.

The economic and social challenges of urban and rural America are real.  We need a new dialogue, a new approach and a recognition that shared prosperity is our only path forward in the long run. We need to honor the discord as an opportunity to listen more deeply to one another.

We face unprecedented challenges as a state. We have so much to be grateful for.  Yes, rural areas are the breadbasket of agriculture and small town quality of life.  But they are so much more. Yes, urban areas are an economic powerhouse of innovation.  But they are so much more. There is room for us to stretch outside of the bounds of tired cliches and see the quiet dignity in our entire state.

Now is not the time not to retreat into status quo political battles but to rise to a shared sense of moral and public obligation to govern.

Together we can do all those things we cannot do alone.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,


Note:  I had elected to take a break from blogging but am now back in the game.

Reflections on Sound Transit Reflections

August 14, 2016


Recently I penned a guest blog post on Publicola outlining my reservations about the structural integrity of the $54 billion financing of Sound Transit 3.

I made the case that the poorly constructed financing plan negatively impacts public education by effectively transferring some key property tax authority from the state–currently not being utilized but still reserved for education–to the Sound Transit special purpose taxing district.

As I expected, the reaction to my thought piece has been overwhelmingly negative.  And understandably so.

I myself find it distasteful to peel away the layers of how we as a state with an economically inefficient and inequitable tax structure have chosen to finance $54 billion.  Aside from some exceptions of a few truly mean-spirited private Twitter comments, I will acknowledge that I have been generally comfortable with the harsh reactions because it shows a deep desire to do more for transportation and education outside of the tired constraints of a broken revenue structure.  We need to build the energy for responsible tax reform to be the global leader we envision.

Still, because so much of the Sound Transit conversation is about the exciting spending and investment side (who gets what and when), I believe the overall public dialogue is improved by raising tough issues of how we responsibly pay for it.

Following my post, in addition to Heidi Groover’s fair coverage at The Stranger, two insightful policy responses are The Urbanist guest post by community activist Robert Cruickshank and Seattle Transit Blog’s Zach Shaner.  Friendly reminders that we can engage in civic dialogue, battle over ideas and understand each others’ positions respectfully and substantively.

First, in reflecting on the response, I restate what was lost, in that I very much care about building a modern, 21st Century public infrastructure including rail, transit and an integrated network of transportation.  It’s core to quality of life.  I enjoy and support Sound Transit and I want it be successful and a robust part of our region’s future.  I’m thrilled that after years of promises Northwest Seattle is finally in line to receive direct service and not just pay taxes.

The idea from some social media comments that I’m “anti-transit” because I had the chutzpah to publicly ask serious financial questions about how we raise $54 billion is ridiculous.  Have we reached a point where a Democratic state legislator from Seattle–legally sworn to uphold the state constitution including the paramount duty clause–can’t openly question the accurate costs and bonding implications of a $54 billion financing plan because such probing could be seen as insufficiently progressive?  That strains credibility.  My district wants robust transit very, very much–and benefits enormously from this package–but our constituents also expect us to read the fine print of how to pay for it.  That’s why we’re paid the big bucks.

I don’t mean to be flippant in reminding us that we’re spending $1.2 billion on a controversial deep bore tunnel to replace the Viaduct that has easily received 1000 times the policy debate, media coverage and activist scrutiny than the financing details of a $54 billion borrowing plan that will permanently alter the landscape of our taxation scheme.

Second, I should have been clearer in my first post:  I am not in any way leading the charge to defeat the measure, I am not a warrior to start over, I am not joining any organized opposition, nor do I expect others to share my viewpoint.  I simply went public with my private reservations about what I consider an inferior $54 billion financing plan after advocates prodded me to take a public stand on ST3.  They were right to ask honestly and I think I was right to answer honestly instead of hiding behind obfuscation.

In deference to my constituents–among the most educated, engaged and thoughtful in the state–I believe I showed appropriate respect to my district to publicly share my financial concerns and not merely hide behind balloons and banners pretending there are no negative implications to this funding framework.  It doesn’t mean in any way that I’m right and others are wrong it merely means the financing side of the package matters and should be on the front page and not buried in the footnotes.

Third, when Sound Transit came to Olympia with their proposed financing plan, I was chair of the House Finance Committee and I specifically raised the predicament of using the state portion of the property tax–reserved for education–for transportation.  Here are some of my public positions outlining my strong and consistent opposition to redirecting the property tax away from education to Sound Transit here, here and here.

Understandably, Sound Transit would not, in any way, shape or form, enter into meaningful discussions with me about alternative financing options including my recommendation of a modest business and employee transportation fee with an exemption for small businesses of 50 employees or less.  I made the case privately that premier companies such as Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia, Starbucks and others may actually view an employee transportation fee as having a relevant, direct nexus of value worthy of discussion.   If we are going to prioritize the spine in order to get people throughout the region, shouldn’t regional employers be a more robust part of the solution?  I think many of our business leaders would be open to that constructive discussion.  It’s not an entire solution but a modest link in a more progressive package.  I made the case that it was at least worth private discussions with the broader business community to assess the option and potential of a deal based on a strong nexus of value.

With due respect and deference, I believe a modest business employee fee–designed in partnership with the business community for transportation–shouldn’t be a holy untouchable revenue source.  Nor should additional targeted regional tolling.  Moreover, designing a 50-year revenue model is hard.  At a structural level, outside of the property tax, I think building 61% of the broader model on a sales tax base that is shrinking by the year (due to Internet, goods vs. services, etc.) is a mistake.  Philosophically, I have long advocated a more ‘pay as you go’ approach to government.

Of course, Sound Transit knew that redirecting the state’s portion of the property tax was still preferable to other options for their internal needs:  1) using local property tax authority that would have been felt by their own city and county members; 2) risking upsetting the business community essential to support and funding of a pro-Sound Transit 3 campaign;  3)  risking upsetting the more volatile Republican-led Senate and the deals needed to get authorization in the first place.  Finally, they had other senior Democratic legislators on board so my complaints about the property tax component were, understandably, more of an outlier nuisance.

In fairness, in their shoes, I may have taken the same political position and I harbor no ill will toward individuals or the institution.  In designing this package, they did what was in their best financial interests to keep ST3 moving forward.

Finally, there is a hippocratic oath in politics as in medicine:  do no harm.  I lost the battle in Olympia and I respect the broader desire to move forward with the current spending and revenue plan.

The teachable moment for me is a profound–and deeply powerful–reminder that in the end we at the state level don’t have the same passion, spirit, energy and drive to build a world-class education system that has been displayed in Seattle to build a 21st Century transportation system.

Your partner in service,



%d bloggers like this: