Teleprompter Plutocracy




Tele = Greek for "At A Distance". Prompt comes from the Latin "promere", which means to bring forth. So when a politician uses a teleprompter, the question is: who is bringing forth that politician from afar? Answer therein.


Here is the president of the USA on TV, announcing the "end" of the Iraq war. Whatever. Obama has announced many things before, and delivered the opposite, while calling it still something else (it’s no more operation "Iraqi Freedom", but operation "New Dawn"). The top US general in the Middle East (who looks like a villain in an horror movie, with the appropriate verbal delivery) already declared the USA would use force if things got out of control again. Meaning USA control, of course.

Of course Obama needs to read a teleprompter about the end of the Iraq war, because, otherwise, he would not know what to say. He called the Iraq war a "dumb war" in 2002. But the plan he is presiding over is to enjoy indefinitively the fruits, or rather the oil, of that dumb war with 50,000 soldiers and thousands of mercenaries. How clever is that?

But forget about Iraq. What is interesting is the presidential verbal delivery: big exorbited eyes reading the teleprompter, a machine sitting above the camera, with an haphazard gluing of invented emotions, while a hand delivers the J F Kennedy routine of waving, an index and thumb together for calm precision. A magical trick.

Certainly, if a lawyer came in front of a judge, and read from a teleprompter, that would not be tolerated. What is the difference between teleprompter reading and reading from notes? Well, when one reads from notes, there are basically two behavioral strategies: that of the old Stalinists, and that of readers who want their audience to believe that they genuinely believe in one what they read.

The old Stalinists read from a text, for hours. That looked completely canned. Everybody could see they were not genuine. They did not care, because they had the power, and that was their message. Being so obviously disingenuous was part of their oppression scheme. It said: ‘Look at us, we don’t believe in what we say, so we have to read it carefully, because it’s so disingenuous. But we can do so, because you can do nothing about it, and the proof is that we don’t care that we look so disingenuous. So don’t try a thing, you don’t have a chance.’

Indeed, it took 50 years to get rid of most Stalinist regimes.

If one wants, or needs, to read from a text when speaking, because one has a bad memory, while one wants to shows one’s face, eyes and emotions, to demonstrate to one’s audience one’s authenticity, one has to engage in a complicated mental gymnastic between reading a fragment of the notes, and projecting one’s mind, while recalling the corresponding emotions, when one verbalizes that fragment.

One uses the notes to make a memory recall, emotional and logical, each time one looks at a fragment of the notes. One reads a fragment quickly, then, having disengaged from the text, to look up at the audience, one goes back to the set of ideas and emotions connected to that fragment. The point is that part of one’s mind is recycled to some extent, and rises to the surface, at the moment of speaking. The notes act as a spark, the mind is engaged in fabricating the speech that is delivered, fragment by fragment. Spark, re-creation, spark, etc.

IT OUGHT TO BE UNLAWFUL FOR POLITICIANS TO READ FROM A TELEPROMPTER, JUST AS IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS. Normally intelligent persons do not use a teleprompter when speaking. A teleprompter is a performance enhancing device. Leave aside the fact only well financed politicians can afford them. A teleprompter allows to fake authenticity more than reading from a text. Indeed the politician can be much more of a complete puppet, while faking much more genuiness, when using a teleprompter.

Suppose you want a tall, lanky young man who is brown and looks like a sort of model at a distance. Suppose you find one who is willing to read whatever text you prepare for him, as long as you fork the money over, and offer power on a platter. Suppose you are a plutocrat. You have found your agent of misguidance. You will bring forth (prompt) the telegenic young man to present whatever misinformation you concocted to mislead and misinform the public, you will do it from afar: tele. You are using a "teleprompter" to do so. While filling your own pockets. As a plutocrat, you make war to the people. Nothing better than a Trojan Horse to ride in.

" In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed." (SunTzu; circa 500 BCE.)

Now suppose you are a voter, and you listen to the puppet saying whatever you want to hear. You will vote for the puppet, as long as you believe he is genuine. You will vote for the puppet, as long as you believe that the puppet is not a puppet. But it is much more difficult to find that out, when the puppet reads from a teleprompter. You observe his mechanical delivery, and emotional disengagement, and you naturally think: ‘It’s just the teleprompter.’ You would not tolerate such a masquerade from a normal speaker.

Somebody who is reading from a teleprompter is not processing the information. Such a person does not necessarily believe in anything he or she says. It is worse than in acting: at least an actor memorizes her, or his lines, and a good actor weaves them with emotion, just to effect recollection. So the mind of an actor mixes with her, or his discourse. Not so with a teleprompter reading robot.

Seeing Obama reading from his teleprompter that he was announcing the end of the war in Iraq, two things were obvious: he did not believe in anything he said, and he did not care. He was just reading what he had been told to read, that was his job, and he found it boring, and a bit uncomfortable, perhaps because there are limits to the sort of lying a gentleman will do. But it required careful observation to figure all that out, because of the teleprompter.

In any case, removing teleprompters from politicians will make the puppeteering harder. It is as many invisible strings cut off.

Meanwhile, there is little to do about Obama. His stimulus on infrastructure was only 66 billions (paid by July 2010, says the WSJ). Moreover there was no plan, besides helping the banking plutocrats, helping the military-industrial plutocrats, and the health industry plutocrats. Obama has professed his admiration for Reagan, and Reagan, another plutocratic puppet, knew that power trickled from the top (Reagan’s own life was a testimony to this, so it had got to be right: it felt good).

Obama’s strategy of helping the banks is sinking the economy. Trillions of dollars have been sent to the banks. At this point they get money for free, and reinvest it with the government on so called longer maturities to make more money, and call that profits. Toxic mortgages held by banks are sold to nationalized FNMA and Freddie Mac, which swallow them greedily, as ordered. Of course banks do not provide any money for the economy, although that is their FIDUCIARY DUTY, in exchange for the exorbitant privilege they have, and abuse, of creating most of the money of the realm.

Why should they provide money for the economy? The Obama economic team is their friend. Moreover the bank surge has created a fake GDP surge.

So, instead, one talks about side issues, such as China’s debasing of its currency. Changing the Chinese currency by even 100% would not change the problem: China has a plan, the USA does not. Obama’s stimulus on infrastructure (only $66 billion, as I said) was even then not concentrated on the edge of competiveness and efficiency, as it should have been (and is in China, or Germany, or France, and now Britain). Most of the enormous financial effort is in making war in the Middle East, and in allowing the banksters to stay so powerful that it was worth being friends to them.

Indeed, GDP reflects nothing important. Dues to the malignant growth of the financial sector, as that tumor gets enlarged, so does GDP.

Frank Rich denounce in an editorial on the Billionaires Financing The Tea Party. One will recognize in them, the one I used to call on the Tyranosopher web site, "Murderoch" (for his rabid pushing for the Iraq butchery). But there are other, like the immensely rich Koch brothers.

Obama got financed, at great sacrifice, by plenty of small people (including the author and his family). Some small people I know very well gave even more than the Fat Cats on Wall Street. Still Obama listened only to the later. Because the Fat Cats did not just offer money, they offered a future. They offered Obama and his economic team a dream: read the teleprompter, and all your wildest dreams will come true; vacations in 5 star hotels forever!

That was the surprise. Famous democrats in the past, such as LBJ, JFK, and FDR did not behave that way, as if greed were the  ultimate personal good. Instead, great democratic presidents of the past turned against the plutocratic class with a bellow and a vengeance. There were no less than four presidents of the USA in the twentieth century who took on the plutocrats. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt "welcomed their hatred".

None of these presidents were naïve: three belonged to the plutocratic class itself materially, but they were free from it, spiritually. And Lyndon Johnson had seen it all, had seen the dirt before. Of course those presidents had not been selected as teleprompter reading robots; that particular trait of character did not exist yet. Now it does, and it’s most convenient to the plutocratic masters.

The great strategist Von Clausewitz points out that surprise demoralizes the enemy: “the surprise is, therefore, not only the means to the attainment of numerical superiority; but it is also to be regarded as a substantive principle in itself, on account of its moral effect.(Von Clausewitz’s "On War", "General Strategy".)

Obama has been the surprise the masters needed. Obama has done well for the plutocracy: he has demoralized the left. A deeply undermining job.

When Hitler came to power, his crucial trick was to gather support from the unemployed, the working class, and all those who desperately wanted change, from the bad economy. Behind Hitler were American, and German plutocrats (this is explained here and there on my sites). We have seen that movie before, but people were told it was not what it was. So it’s happening again. The fish rots by the head, so does a country.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: ,

14 Responses to “Teleprompter Plutocracy”

  1. multumnonmulta Says:

    Mon ami, your 2 last paragraphs are so… that I’m going to explore that line of thought.

    Mussolini and Hitler came to power through the LEFT. Then, the true LEFT was delegitimized while they moved to the RIGHT. Paying lip service to the left while being on the right is nothing less than fascism, indeed.

    So, we either deconstruct fascism and rescue it, or call these guys by their name. This last statement is not mere rhetoric, we should take on this task, because we should neither allow words to scare us, nor put up with shell games.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      multumnonmulta: I had the good fortune of having an uncle, a great astronomer and astrophysicist, close to the Communist Party, and having long work with Soviet mathematicians and physicists. He was always forbidden to endanger the USA by setting foot on its hallowed ground (due to being in the PCF). He was an astronomer first, a towering intellectual. He was also married to (the second) Moltke’ niece. So he was very much in the know about whom and how Hitler and his Nazis came to power. He instructed me.

      In my vision of things, Hitler was part of a much larger scheme. This scheme was boosted further by Hitler coming and going. There is an old principle, actually more like a theorem: when searching for the author of a crime, search to whom the crime profitted. Now the scheme is in better view than ever before. And never have things being so scary. The weapons are immensely powerful, and not just nukes: propaganda is enormously effective.

      The case of Rwanda is examplary; it seems that the good president Kagame, the tall lanky, splendid hero, general, liberator of his country, excellent orator with the “One Rwanda” speech (echoing Hitler, preceding Obama), dabbed quite a bit in genocide himself (there have been warrants for arrest for genocides from European judges for the closest people to Kagame). But Kagame has been able to pose, successfully, as victim for decades, although he speaks English in a country which speaks French. And we still do not know who exactly shot down the plane containing the two presidents, and where the missile(s?) came from. That started the civil war in Rwanda, which, ultimateley, made Kagame in all that he could be.

      Another examplary situation about the efficiency of modern propaganda, was how most of the USA swallowed, hook, line, sink and boat, the lies of Bush about Iraq. And the lies are going on: Iraq is occupied by the USA and its henchmen, it’s not a democracy, end of the story. A bit of observing brings to that conclusion. But most people don’t want to approach that one with a thirty foot pole, so they don’t see it.

      Fascism, from my point of view, is an honorable instinct, it made the group as one out of the multitude of independent minds (I have that aspect developed in Tyranosopher). As you say, when we use it, we should be clearer about it. Fascii are actually the centerpiece of the French republic coat of arms (as they were the symbol of the Roman republic).



    • multumnonmulta Says:


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Neo-conservative is indeed obviously a code word for the older, and very well know term, “neofascist”. I was myself bombed long ago by (European) neofascists, so I am strongly biased against them. Interestingly, I had talked nicely and reasonably to them, in months prior. In a way that betrayal of the polite intellectual discourse reminds me of what is presently going on in Washington. In the eye of the brutish, POWER PRIMES DEBATE. Unfortunately, it is the brutish who tends to get to political power.

        Let me reproduce the post # 89 (I think they censored my own comment I think because I used the word “Murderoch”, that they may have understood all too well; yesterday, in a comment to Krugman’s editorial, I made an analogy between Papen and Obama, although I did not mention Papen by name, just Schacht, the friend of JP Morgan; anyway they sat on the comment to put it at the end of the queue, if they published it… )

        SAJPUSA August 29th, 20109:33 am

        “Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.”

        Sadly, such stunningly transparent facts are too complex for their supporters to understand, wherein the ‘belief factor’ takes over — pummeling their minds with easily remembered and repeated epithets, simplistic, catchy, bumper-sticker slogans, and pseudo-logical *common sense*.

        Before Leo Strauss, these obscenely wealthy, deranged parasites were just acolytes of Mussolini — Strauss merely mouthed the key words necessary to bring neo-con fascism into the 21st century, otherwise nothing has really changed — inconceivably wealthy master manipulators who use Anna Freud’s methods to their utmost contemptible limits.

        With their detailed history plainly obvious, why we refuse to openly call men like the Kochs and Murdochs ‘fascists’ is hard to understand — they are the absolute definition of the term.

        Let’s take the gloves off and call it what it is — a continuous, multi-generational attempt at a government coup by unambiguously anti-constitutional fascists.


  2. multumnonmulta Says:

    To me it all comes down to how the elites take care of the rest. The American mythology behind notions like self-reliance and such should be increasingly obvious right now when I don’t see private initiative springing up at every corner. It served this country well when the West was taken over, it does little more than provide temporary relief from social unrest now. Time is running out, though. The political move of the elites was to ride on the wings of the progressives, the ones who can think and also think of others as well. Who knows what the next move is going to be? Beck is trying his hand at traditional values, the Tea Party wants a seat at the table, while the left is being split from the inside in professional left and ‘the good guys like us.’

    Fascism opposed internationalism, or globalization today; today’s elites are as international as ever. From what you are suggesting, the elites behind the last century’s fascists were just as international, except that those they thought of as puppets decided to have a mind of their own. In other words, beware what you wish for!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      multumnonmulta: Many subjects you touch upon. There was never a serious conflict between serious plutocrats and Hitler. Hitler vented his frustration on the Jews (viewed as big time plutocrats, which the Rothschild were as they implemented fractional reserve with a vengeance to finance Britain against France, although they were on the other side too). He also turned against the Prussian aristocracy (albeit after it tried to kill him). But Hitler never screamed against his real sponsors, and it is not clear he really understood what had happened. Actually what happened was more like a giant accident, a giant wreck. The French republic, which was not pupeetered by plutocrats, was the deadly enemy of Hitler, and was really the force that tripped Hitler. So the true blood Nazis (a joke) hated France. But all of this masked the work of the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats, all the more since England had interest to cover its tracks (the treaty of 1935 with Hitler, violating Versailles does not look that good; it paralyzed the French in 1936).

      American plutocrats manipulated Washington as they do today. For example, it cannot be a miracle that none of the 35 IBM plants in Germany suffered more than cosmetic damage. It was known where they were, and how important IBM was to Hitler. Anyway, I do not believe in that kind of miracles.

      I am careful not to participate in the anti-Beck hysteria, which I view as highly disingenuous. It’s true Beck called the president of the USA a racist, as the fascists on the left mentioned ardently. but he was talking about Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson. I myself made the argument that Wilson’s racism precipitated WWI, more than 6 years before Beck talked about it. And, as I mentioned in the past, there is no left in the USA, except for a few individuals. Anyway, i do not know what “left” means.

      In Europe, the true “left” found itself in complete contradiction between the Third World (that it loves so much, except it can’t stand it, and has never lived there), and the Workers of the World Unite (who are paid 30 times more for the same job, in the West!) They did not solve that contradiction. I have solved it: it goes through extreme innovation, and mental supremacy, enforced in the West. Interestingly, it has been a bit the tac used by Germany under Schroeder (and now bearing its fruits). It is also in the grand old tradition of Colbertism, so it is ultra French. Earlier than that, it is how Medieval Europe came to dominate, an impulse pushed by Charlemagne, Alcuin and company, but already obvious under queen Bathilde (when the monasteries became de facto universities, very well financed).


  3. Joseph Says:


    accoding to you “IT OUGHT TO BE UNLAWFUL FOR POLITICIANS TO READ FROM A TELEPROMPTER […because…] a teleprompter allows to fake authenticity more than reading from a text”. However there are some positive aspects of teleprompters that you overlook:

    – key speeches in todays political und media climate are heavily overanalyzed especially when they come from heads of states like the American president. There are thousands of journalists, bloggers, political contrahents, interested citizens etc that try to interpret every single sentence and word. You simply cant just be rambling on for the sake of authenticity when a single misplaced word and similar mistakes can serve as ammunition for political enemys and/or cost sympathys of voters.
    Check out the reaction to this mistake committed by Cameron:

    – mistakes in speeches on foreign policy can be especially problematic. (there is the chance that you spit out a state secret, too)

    – the words of a head of state can be legally effective : (

    – furthermore the utterances of a president can have a direct impact on the stock market and the economy in general.

    – a president has to explain decisions reached by his cabinet on a whole range of issues. How can he understand all of them in a way that would allow him to speak freely on each of them without risking a major gaffe?

    – a president is not a full time actor (although you might disagree). There are briefings, meetings and all kinds of obligations and there is simply not enough time to allow X takes of him talking free or semi free until he gets it right. Hence even in the case of prerecorded speeches teleprompters are very convenient and practical.

    – As long as a president has been involved in the drafing of a speech (writing it himself, supervising the drafting process, correcting it or whatever), there is no authenticity problem in my mind. In the speech you cited, you claim that this has not been the case. However you dont have any proof and rely solely on your personal “observation”.

    Therefore using a teleprompter can be very advisable and not just a sign of mising authenticity etc.

    However your essay is not so much about teleprompters as it is about depicting Obama as just another puppet of a “plutocratic elite”. Your evidence for this claim is pretty thin at best and the telepromter-bit is not really helping either for the aforementioned reasons.

    It seems that you are basing your claim mainly on the fact, that he bailed out the us banking sector or rather the too big to fail institutes that, i gather, are controlled by your plutocratic elite. I assume that you will then agree that the the French government is also controlled by that elite since they too used 360bn dollars of tax payer money to prop up their banks and “fat cats”. ( ? Probably the EU nations as a whole are under the control of those bad guys ( ?

    Or perhaps not ?



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Joseph: Many points in what you say. Forgive my cursory response, and I thank you for your judicious observations.

      First, overall, the present system puts too much power in just one individual’s hand. Suppose the president had been a drug addict, and his brain is partly fried, and he really can’t think? Suppose the president has to depend upon an cached elite? What we have essentially is a kingship. Kings were elected in the ancient European world, and they were tightly constrained in what they could do (Clovis changed this at Soissons, as he imposed Roman imperial ways, per his powers as Roman Consul, and Imperator; that was the founding gesture of the rights of kings, and the reason of state).

      Switzerland has a presidential council of 7 members and Doris Leuthard leads it now, for a year. Differently from the plutocratic puppet of the world’s largest imperial machine, she speaks without a machine telling her what to do. She is pretty explicit, she talks a lot, and well, but if she says something she should not have said, she corrects it.

      Even George Orwell in “1984” did not imagine that a country would be led by a man reading from a machine.

      You can mention France, but no French banker ever made as much money as Rahm Emanuel, who made 17 million from a bank in 2 years, probably as pre-payment for his present great work.

      The truth is the present system is tottering on the verge of fascism. You cannot have who used to be a kid on drugs for more than a decade take gigantic life and death decisions for the whole planet, and still call that democracy. Some of the present strategies a kid imposes are puerile, and dumb beyond description. The wars in the Middle East are completely out of control, and the USA cannot afford them, in many dimensions, moral, economic, etc. (nor can NATO, which ought to grab back control of Africa instead).

      The present political system, has no future (neither does the public-private fractional reserve system). A solution exists: using various means, including the Internet, DIRECT DEMOCRACY is feasible. It is practiced in Switzerland pretty effectively. It has shortcomings (the Swiss people refuse to get formally in the EU, so the country is getting into the EU sort of backwards, or sideways, with no less than 10 treaties signed with the EU, just in economics!)

      I have written thousands of pages of why Obama is a plutocratic pawn, from as early as 2008. The French government is certainly controlled all too much by plutocrats, and the rumor is that the Cour De La Republique is going to start an inquiry on Sarkozy’s budget minister, Woerth. La Cour De La Republique has magnificent judges covered with hermine, wearing a large cross. It only judges government members.

      Plutocracy is all too influential in the EU, but when one asks EU officials, they say their hands are tied by the attitude of the USA. Once the Bolivian Justice minster told me the same. But now Mr. Morales is president there, and no doubt Lithium is going to be more expensive than the USA plutocrats would wish. There will be progress, if we fights.

      By the way, I like Cameron’s attitude (although I dumbly sort of supported Brown in the election, himself a plutocratic pawn, except in the last 12 months, or so, i.e., too late…). Cameron turns out to be the anti-Obama. He promised conservatism, he delivers conservatism, but he also delivers his Big Society program (namely positive progress!). In the UK, the party’s program has constitutional force. Obama promised what was in this site in the past, when he was campaigning. Then he proceeded to do the opposite. He would not have been able to get away with that in the UK. Obama chose the Rubin plutocratic team, to give more of their infernal advice which had already done more for plutocracy than G. W. Bush Himself.

      All of Obama’s work are fake democratic reforms, which the republican Congress to come will dismantle in two weeks, supposing they even bother. I would like somebody to point out even ONE real reform Obama did. There is NONE. It’s all an ominous right wing, torrid wind. Not that Obama cares. But people who want progress to progress, worldwide, are angry, and exasperated.


  4. multumnonmulta Says:

    Without belaboring, Beck can be used, if it comes to it, just like Obama. That’s all. All I meant to say is that the elites are swinging and probably covering the other end of the spectrum. They hate nothing more than surprises.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I know a very right wing engineer who holds the same opinion. He believes Beck is not a “real patriot”, that he will “betray” the right wing ideals (whatever those are). Which is fine with me. Better betray the right wing than the left wing, after 41 years of solide right wing.


  5. multumnonmulta Says:

    I wouldn’t go as far as (not) calling Beck a patriot, in his own mind he can be a lot of things. I’m just saying that he’ll be played just like Obama is, when/if need arises.

    I finally got to read Frank Rich in New York Times. I’ll have to follow with the Koch bros story in the New Yorker. At first sight, something must have gotten out of hand. We’ll get to see what Obambi is made out of.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The plutocratic interference in USA politics is massive and omnipresent, it’s not just Murderoch (a noun censored by NYT, by the way), and the Kochs. Question of the nature of the Bambi in Chief, he just does not care. He is just happy he got to the turf he is at now. I sent a comment to Krugman’s editorial complaint that Obambi will keep on frolicking on that meadow he found. Here it is:

      German politicians played it safe too, in the 1920s and 1930s. As the extreme right became ever more hysterical and threatening, they gave in, and made its bed, ever more. Schacht, for example, was the head of the central bank, and then the major financial authority, with connections to JP Morgan, the top USA banker, all the way from 1905. Schacht came to push for the Nazis theses, one after the other.

      Obama, by adopting much of what was Bush’s program (rescuing those who caused the financial catastrophe, expanding the Middle East wars), Obama, by refusing to allow the prosecution of wrong doers in the Bush’s administration, Obama, by engaging in a noisy, but ineffective stimulus, has accommodated the right. Now the extreme right feels more justified than ever in its crazy themes and plutocratic principles.

      But this is all too subtle and historical for Obama and company to understand, so they will keep surrendering to the very ideals they pretend to combat. Those who don’t know history are sure it will not happen again.


  6. Vandevender Says:

    I wonder what Obama will do after his presidency is over.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      1) Money. 2) Golf.

      OK, I will resist saying that his presidency is actually over. Or, better, that it did not start yet. It’s the teleprompter which presides, apparently.

      I must confess that, knowing that he knew very little, and that his program was clinging to my blog as if to dear life, I was hoping we would go on like that. But on November 5, 2008, the day after he was elected, Obama went to “work” at a hedge fund. Unbelievable. At that point, I knew. It is also clear that he does not understand the enormity of the disaster his presidency has been so far. And the immense opportunity which was missed.

      This being said, the extent of the bad advice is amazing. Even the “opposition” (Reich, Stiglitz, Krugman, Simon Johnson, etc…) is coming very short of what is really needed. I am preparing an essay on this. Hayek and Keynes were both deeply flawed. I advise to go back to Colbert instead (no, not the funny guy). I am not quoting the republicans, who are infeodated to Wall Street, like Obama, as a real opposition. Instead, they are Obama’s wet dream: he will be able to become fully bipartisan very soon, without spatio-temporal contortions, opposing himself to get nowhere not bipartisan.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

%d bloggers like this: