Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Waiting For Lefty: The Deeper Meaning Of Corbyn And Brexit [feedly]

Waiting For Lefty: The Deeper Meaning Of Corbyn And Brexit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deeper-meaning-corbyn-brexit_us_5934845ae4b02478cb9cc7a7

LONDON – British journalists, pollsters and political strategists are struggling to interpret Jeremy Corbyn's stunning rise in the pre-election polls. Corbyn, at 68, and a proud leader of Britain's left, had been dismissed by British elites as a hopeless case.

Corbyn had become Labour Party leader only because of a change in the Party rules that inadvertently gave the decision to grassroots radicals―who can pay a few pounds, join the Party and cast votes to select a leader with the consent of only a minority of Labour MPs.

The Parliamentary Labour Party used to select the Leader. Today it's filled with centrist followers of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, most of whom opposed Corbyn.

In April, when Prime Minister Theresa May called a June snap election in hopes of increasing her Conservative majority in the House of Commons, now just 17 seats, polls showed Labour 24 points behind the Tories, and poised to lose dozens of seats.

Now, with the June 8 election just days away, Corbyn has surged to within a few points of May. To a visiting American journalist, the election feels like a cross between Sanders versus Clinton and Clinton versus Trump.

Like Sanders, Corbyn is demonstrating that there is a broad hunger for progressive populism, awaiting only the right leader. Ordinary Brits have gotten screwed by the elite globalization embraced by both the Tories and the Labour Party under its last two governments led by Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010).

With the June 8 election just days away, Corbyn has surged to within a few points of May.

Corbyn's program, For the Many, Not the Few, ridiculed by the usual suspects as hopelessly leftwing, evidently appeals to a lot of Britons, and is also sensible economics: Raise taxes on the affluent, restore public services, including free higher education, reclaim union bargaining rights, re-nationalize the results of failed privatizations, clamp down on predatory private capital.

Like Hillary Clinton, Prime Minister Theresa May has proved to be a spectacularly inept politician. The more people see her, the less they like her. 

The Tories feinted to the center, pledging to shore up the National Health Service. But in order to plug a budget gap, they proposed to tax estates of over 100,000 pounds—about $130,000—to recoup money paid out by the health system for long term care.

This was promptly dubbed "the dementia tax." May reversed course, and then looked even stupider when she denied changing her stance.

May also ducked a candidates' debate, sending in her place the government's Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. May's strategy has been to try to be above it all. This is also backfiring.

Meanwhile, Corbyn, not an especially charismatic politician, has become more and more confident, relaxed, comfortable in his own skin, and likable. Voters increasingly experience Corbyn as a man of principle and May an opportunist. Even if they don't agree with his entire program, they see Corbyn as on the side of the common person, and as a man of integrity.

It's very reminiscent of Clinton versus Sanders, even down to the role of the Democratic National Committee. The established Labour Party, very Blairized, loathes Corbyn as a throwback to the kind of radicalism that Blair was trying to expunge.

Even two grizzly terrorist attacks, one last week in Manchester and the other Saturday night on London Bridge, have not produced the usual rallying around the government.

The election will come down to turnout. Polls indicate that Corbyn has the support of overwhelming numbers of young people. Traditionally, however, the young turn out at a much lower rate than the old. 

This time might be different. Under the British system, you have until two weeks before the election to register to vote. The Corbyn surge began in mid-May. There are enough voters registered to elect him. The question is how many will show up at the polls. 

The election could well produce what the British call a hung Parliament, in which neither Labour nor the Tories have an absolute majority. This would give the balance of power to the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), who are expected to win about 50 seats in the 630 member House of Commons. The odds are that the SNP would back a minority Labour government rather than May and the Tories.

And this raises the issue of Britain's exit from the European Union, one of the most bizarre cases ever of a governing class shooting itself in the foot.

When the Brexit madness does pass, the harder work of rebuilding a decent Britain that works "for the many, not the few," only begins.
THE MORNING EMAIL
Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron decided to bet Britain's future on two reckless rolls of the dice. He gave Scotland the right to have a referendum on whether to stay in the U.K. (the Scots narrowly voted to stay in 2014). And he hoped to silence critics of the E.U. both in his own Tory party and in the more rightwing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) by offering a referendum on whether Britain should quit the E.U.

But oops, Cameron guessed wrong on that. In the so-called Brexit vote of June 2016, a narrow majority of 52 to 48 cast their ballots to leave the E.U. Cameron's own ignominious exit as British prime minister followed in short order.

And then, to compound the weirdness, Theresa May, who succeeded Cameron as prime minister, had been opponent of Brexit, but she decided that her ticket to political success was to "make Brexit work." And she concluded that the way to marginalize the rightwing nationalists of UKIP was to be just as hard line as they on the subject.

This was a tactical success—UKIP has gone into eclipse as the Tories have become the party of Brexit—but a strategic disaster. For there is simply no way to make Brexit work.

Consider just a few items:

Britain wants to have its cake and eat too, keeping tariff-free access for trade with the nations of the E.U, but having the freedom to limit free movement of people, and also opting out of many E.U. laws and regulations. But there is no way the E.U leadership will allow that. 

Some 14,000 trucks travel between Dover and Calais every day. Imagine if they were subject to border inspections?

The defunct British auto industry was rescued by Japanese and Korean carmakers after the Thatcher government extended generous tax breaks. Britain became their export platform to continental Europe. If there is no more free trade between Britain and the continent, other nations will be happy to take these factories.

Fully half of all British exports go to E.U. countries. But only ten percent of E.U. exports go to Britain. Guess which side has more leverage in the negotiations?

Since Thatcher, Britain's most important industry has been international finance. With the threat of Britain losing access to barrier-free export of financial services, the big American and British banks are already making contingency plans to move operations to Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and so on.

The state of play is that negotiations on the details will continue through 2019 or 2020. At some point, the reality will sink in that Brexit can't be done, except at immense pain to Britain's economy.

Denis MacShane, former Europe minister in the Blair government, wrote a prophetic book in 2015 on how Britain's governing class was setting itself for a catastrophe in the 2016 Brexit vote. 

MacShane has a new book due out in July, explaining just why getting out of the E.U. is like unscrambling an egg. "There are 750 separate treaties that would have to be negotiated," he told me. British citizens would lose benefits they've come to take for granted, such as the right to retire in pleasant places on the continent, and free health care while they are traveling in Europe. The more all of this sinks in, the less popular Brexit will be,

And this brings us back to Corbyn and May. Corbyn was never a strong supporter of the E.U., which he viewed as a source of imported neo-liberalism. Nominally, Labour supports making Brexit work. But if he is the next prime minister, Corbyn is not likely to lead Britain out of the EU on the terms that will be offered.

And if his government requires the support of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Brexit becomes even less likely, since the Scots are passionate about not wanting to quit the E.U. A Britain that left the E.U. could well pave the way for a Britain without Scotland.

Even if May is re-elected, pressure will keep increasing from the Conservatives' usual constituency of Britain's ruling elites not to commit the folly of Brexit. The best outcome would be for the sheer opportunism of two successive Conservative prime ministers to discredit their party for a long time—but not at the price of a catastrophically bad decision to quit Europe.

Of course, when the Brexit madness does pass, the harder work of rebuilding a decent Britain that works "for the many, not the few," only begins.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility

Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook.

Follow Robert Kuttner on Twitter


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Jobs report: Some softening in May. Should the Fed hold off on next rate hike? I say…[read on] [feedly]

Jobs report: Some softening in May. Should the Fed hold off on next rate hike? I say…[read on]
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/jobs-report-some-softening-in-may-should-the-fed-hold-off-on-next-rate-hike-i-say-read-on/

Employers added only 138,000 jobs last month, well below expectations for 175,000. Revisions to payrolls for the prior two months reduced employment gains by 66,000. The unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent, its lowest level since 2001, but for the wrong reason: labor force participation fell by two-tenths of a percent. In other words, this is a considerably weaker-than-expected jobs report.

Given the noise in the monthly data, the question is: does this report signal a real downshift in job growth or is it a blip? Also, if we're really at full employment, we should expect some slowing in payroll gains as employers bump up against supply constraints. And what does this all mean for the Federal Reserve when they meet in a few weeks to consider another rate hike that is firmly priced into the markets?

A good place to start is by smoothing out the monthly noise with the official JB smoother, which takes monthly averages over the past 3, 6, and 12 months. It shows a marked deceleration in job growth, from about 190,000 over the 12-month period to 121,000 over the past three months. While this is suggestive of a softening of the job market, it is also consistent with supply constraints.

However, if such constraints were operative, we should see wage growth accelerating. Yet the next two figures show that while year-over-year wage growth did accelerate as the job market tightened, it has since settled in to about a 2.5 percent pace, showing little acceleration in recent months. That's more of a softening than a tightening story.

The labor force participation rate is another important place to look in this regard, but it is a) a very noisy monthly indicator, and b) the overall rate is down in part due to retirement of aging boomers. A better indicator is thus the prime-age (25-54 year-old) employment rate. After falling 5.5 percentage points in the last recession, this rate has slowly been climbing back–score one for the tightening narrative. However, it ticked down a bit in May and, more importantly (this indicator is also noisy), is still about 2 percentage points below its pre-recession peak.

The underemployment rate, which includes 5.2 million involuntary part-time workers who'd rather be full-timers, fell to a cyclical low of 8.4 percent, though this too reflects May's labor force exits. On the other hand, involuntary part-time work is down a solid 1.2 million over the past year.

Industry employment patterns reveal job losses in retail trade, down about 80,000 over the past four months, as brick and mortar stores lose demand to internet sales. Manufacturing remains soft, and state/local government shed 17,000 jobs in May. Health care continues to deliver, but gains in the sector have averaged 22,000 per month so far this year, compared to 32,000 per month last year.

So which is it: tightening or softening? I've got one more indicator to bring to bear before I render my judgement on this Talmudic question: core inflation.

Prior to the release of the jobs report, the futures market was assigning a 93.5 percent probability to another quarter-point rate hike by the Federal Reserve at their mid-June meeting. However, as the figure below shows, while unemployment is clearly below the Fed's full-employment-unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, core inflation has been going the "wrong" way, i.e., slowing, not speeding up (see its down-tick at the end of the figure).

So, putting it all together, I think there's enough evidence that the Fed's tightening campaign has slowed the job market down for them to pause in their June meeting. I recognize that this will shock markets, but the Fed's client is not the stock market. It's the macroeconomy, and the dual mandate: full employment at stable prices. Given at least some evidence of softening in the job market in tandem with slower core price growth, a data-driven Fed should pause and take stock of where we are.

The members of the central bank apparently think the recent slowdown in price growth is transitory, and that at some point, price pressures will reflect the tightening of the job market. That's certainly plausible, but the last figure shows that they've been missing their 2 percent inflation target for years now. More likely, the historical correlation between inflation and unemployment is much diminished, such that the Fed cannot reliably estimate the lowest unemployment rate consistent with stable, 2 percent inflation.

From this perspective, the Fed is being less data driven than they like to claim, and is in more of an ad hoc mode. They're raising because the governors broadly believe that in year eight of an economic expansion closing in on full employment, rates should be at a more normal level. By doing so slowly, they can monitor the impact of their campaign, and I suspect that, as far as they can see, it looks to be going well–they're "normalizing" the rate, yet, May's results aside, not much dampening the pace of output or job growth.

There are two problems, however, with this approach. One, since they're not data driven, at least as far as the inflation data are concerned, it is hard for observers to know where they're going next. Ad hockery is tougher on expectations than following the data. Two, and this is a more serious concern, for the least advantaged workers to get ahead, the job market has to run very hot, and even small taps on the brakes push the wrong way in that regard.

Given some evidence–uncertain and shaky to be sure–that the job market has cooled a bit while inflation is non-threatening, from what I see from here, the Fed should revert to data-driven mode and punt on a June hike.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Links for 06-03-17 [feedly]

Paul Krugman: Making Ignorance Great Again [feedly]

Paul Krugman: Making Ignorance Great Again
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/06/paul-krugman-making-ignorance-great-again.html

The truth is out there, but it's buried under a large pile of nonsense, lies, misleading statements, and deception:

Making Ignorance Great Again, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: Donald Trump just took us out of the Paris climate accord for no good reason. I don't mean that his decision was wrong. I mean, literally, that he didn't offer any substantive justification... It was just what he felt like doing.
And here's the thing: What just happened on climate isn't an unusual case — and Trump isn't especially unusual for a modern Republican. ... Facts and hard thinking aren't wanted, and anyone who tries to bring such things into the discussion is the enemy.
Consider ... health care. ... Did the administration and its allies consult with experts, study previous experience with health reform, and try to devise a plan that made sense? Of course not. In fact, House leaders made a point of ramming a bill through before the Congressional Budget Office ... could assess its likely impact.
When the budget office did weigh in, its conclusions were what you might expect:... a lot of people are going to lose coverage. Is 23 million a good estimate...? Yes — it might be 18 million, or it might be 28 million, but surely it would be in that range.
So how did the administration respond? By trying to shoot the messenger. Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director, attacked the C.B.O...
So, Mr. Mulvaney, where's your assessment of Trumpcare? You had plenty of resources to do your own study before trying to pass a bill. ...
But Mulvaney and his party don't study issues, they just decide, and attack the motives of anyone who questions their decisions. ... Truth, as something that exists apart from and in possible opposition to political convenience, is no longer part of their philosophical universe. ...
And as health care and climate go, so goes everything else. Can you think of any major policy area where the G.O.P. hasn't gone post-truth? ...
But does any of it matter? The president, backed by his party, is talking nonsense, destroying American credibility day by day. But hey, stocks are up, so what's the problem?
Well, bear in mind that so far Trump hasn't faced a single crisis not of his own making. As George Orwell noted ... in his essay "In Front of Your Nose," people can indeed talk nonsense for a very long time, without paying an obvious price. But "sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." Now there's a happy thought.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Trump’s infrastructure plans are empty promises not backed by money [feedly]

Trump's infrastructure plans are empty promises not backed by money
http://www.epi.org/blog/trumps-infrastructure-plans-are-empty-promises-not-backed-by-money/

It has been declared "infrastructure week" by the Trump administration. On the face of it, that should be excellent news. The U.S. economy would benefit enormously from an ambitious increase in public investment, including infrastructure investment. Such investment would create jobs and finally lock-in genuine full employment in the near-term, and would provide a needed boost to productivity growth (or how much income and output each hour of work generates in the economy) in the medium-term. Further, infrastructure investments would ensure that we do not leave future generations a deficit of underinvestment and deferred maintenance of public assets.

This clear need is why we at EPI have been such enthusiastic backers of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) plan to boost infrastructure investment. The CPC investment plan is up to the scale of the problem, and it confronts the need to make these investments head-on, without accounting gimmicks or magical thinking about where the money for these investments will come from.

Despite being long-standing and loud proponents of the need for more infrastructure investment, however, we cannot say we expect much from the Trump administration's infrastructure week. Why not? Because the most common theme in the Trump administration's approach to infrastructure is pure obfuscation about how it will be paid for. If you're not willing to say forthrightly how you're going to pay for infrastructure investments, you really cannot be serious about it. As the old adage goes, "show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value".

The recently released Trump federal budget plan guts infrastructure, period. Read the link—the damage the Trump budget would do to public investment and infrastructure is staggering. This alone should make any open-minded person extraordinarily skeptical of their claims to value infrastructure spending.

The Trump campaign plan on infrastructure was notable only for its shallowness and its determination to increase cronyism in infrastructure provision. The plan claimed that the problem with American infrastructure investment was a lack of innovative financing, and that the private sector could somehow be convinced to build infrastructure at no cost to taxpayers. This was obviously false. Even long-standing, bipartisan efforts to leverage private sector financing of infrastructure have ranged from disappointing to disastrous. And in no case did they provide a free lunch to taxpayers—unless taxpayers have a huge preference to paying tolls to private companies rather than the same amount of tolls or taxes to governments.

The problem holding back increased investment in American infrastructure is simple: politicians are simply unwilling to increase public spending in a transparent way. This must be overcome—America needs a significant investment in public assets, and it needs this investment to be transparent, subject to democratic accountability, and long-lived.

The sketch of the new Trump infrastructure effort included in their budget shows clearly that they do not get this. Instead, the plan is more obfuscation and magical thinking. They claim their plan will lead to $1 trillion in new investments. Yet only $200 billion in new federal spending is specified (and again, this must be balanced against the enormous cuts to public investment already embedded in their overall budget plan). Where does the rest of the funding come from? In a word, nowhere. There is hand waving about leveraging the private sector and vague claims that federal "divestment" from infrastructure provision will somehow empower state and local governments to do more (but without any new funding source for these governments!). But like Trump's campaign plan, this is an unserious document meant to sound like an infrastructure investment plan, but one that would radically underinvest in projects overall, and which would prioritize projects that can provide profits to private entities (like toll roads to airports) rather than projects that provide the largest welfare boost to vulnerable communities (say replacing lead-laced water pipes for communities like Flint, Michigan).

Read more


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

How Trump Made Wage Theft Routine

How Trump Made Wage Theft Routine


via Portside


Eric Cortellessa
June 5, 2017
The American Prospect
 
"The Trump administration's rhetoric on immigration and its approach to enforcement have made immigrant communities obviously fearful in a new way," says Laura Huizar, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project. "This is going to prevent a lot people from filing wage complaints that they otherwise would have."
 
 


Enrique is a farmworker in California. He has a wife and two sons living in Mexico who depend on the money he sends them. For parts of the year—from May to November—he goes north to Washington to pick apples and cherries. Sometimes, he says, he isn't paid for all the work he does. On one such occasion, he and his coworkers wanted to complain. Stiffing employees, after all, is a federal crime.

But it's not so simple. Enrique is worried that reporting the crime could backfire against him by exposing his immigration status. 

"When we get paid—sometimes we get paid and sometimes we don't—we notice that there are hours missing, and we just fear saying anything, because we've been told repeatedly that if we say anything, they are going to call immigration on us," he says.

Enrique, 49, has heard this all before. It's not new for him, as an undocumented immigrant in this country for more than ten years, to be underpaid at work and faced with the threat of retaliation should he bring it to the attention of the authorities. All it would take is a phone call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Only now, with Donald Trump as president, more employers think wage theft is even easier to get away with.

Enrique (whose name has been changed to protect his identity) says that he and his coworkers wonder whether it's worth it to file a claim with the Department of Labor or the appropriate state agency. "All the workers in the fields that are immigrants experience this fear," he says. "We don't really know what we can do."

But after deliberation and some soul-searching, Enrique did something that exposed him to a risk most of his friends aren't willing to take. He got a lawyer.

 

ENRIQUE'S PLIGHT REFLECTS the growing reality in Trump's America—that immigrants who are victims of wage theft are increasingly afraid to pursue legal remedies. 

"The Trump administration's rhetoric on immigration and its approach to enforcement have made immigrant communities obviously fearful in a new way," says Laura Huizar, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project. "This is going to prevent a lot people from filing wage complaints that they otherwise would have."

Since taking office, Trump has sought to make good on his vow to harden the nation's immigration policies. His Department of Homeland Security secretary, John Kelly, issued sweeping guidelines in February that broadened the definition of "removable aliens" and empowered federal authorities to more aggressively detain and deport undocumented immigrants. Trump has also said he wants to hire an additional 5,000 border agents and 10,000 ICE officers.

Immigrants have already felt the weight of a heavier and more pugnacious ICE presence. In March, the chief justice of California, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, sent a letter to Kelly asking him to stop immigration agents from "stalking courthouses and arresting undocumented immigrants." In response, both Kelly and Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote her a letter back saying that ICE officers will continue to make arrests in public places.

And, indeed, arrests have skyrocketed. Between January 22 and April 29 of this year, ICE arrested 41,318 people on charges of being in the country illegally—a nearly 40 percent increase from the number of people arrested over that same period in 2016. Worse yet, the number of arrests for immigrants with no criminal records doubled.

It's no wonder that, in such a climate, victimized immigrant workers are becoming ever more reluctant to assert their rights. "The atmosphere of fear in the immigrant community is as high as I've ever seen it," a former senior-level Labor Department official says. "People aren't going to school. People aren't going to church. You can imagine that people aren't going to the Labor Department to complain."

 

A BROADLY ENCOMPASSING term, wage theft can include paying workers less than the minimum wage, forcing them to work off the clock, not paying them for overtime, or not paying them at all.

These practices have long been a reality—a 2010 UCLA Labor Center report found that low-wage workers in Los Angeles alone lose roughly $26 million in wage-theft violations each week—but under President Trump, the problem is quickly becoming exacerbated, according to multiple sources who monitor these matters.

"What I have been seeing more and more is a fear on behalf of immigrant workers that they cannot safely come forward to report wage theft and workplace violations," says Marc Cote, a Seattle-based employment lawyer who represents Enrique. "This has always been an issue, but it's become more and more evident since the election of Trump."

Those who advocate on behalf of immigrants have also noticed that some workers have become disinclined to tell their stories even to them—something that has distressed Analia Rodriguez, who heads the Latino Union of Chicago.

Rodriguez, an immigrant herself, recently came across an undocumented woman who resisted her group's help. That worker was getting "shortchanged at work," Rodriguez says. It was only because one of her friends—who was already receiving the Latino Union's assistance—told them about her situation that Rodriguez learned of it.

"What I'm concerned about right now are people like this worker, who was actually not even willing to come forward to us," Rodriguez says. "We really don't know how many people are not coming to community organizations like ours to even try and figure out their case."

 

UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed—through a 2011 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Labor—not to interfere with labor disputes or wage investigations.

"Under this administration, ICE agents are feeling like they can do whatever they want," the former Labor Department official says.

While immigration activists worry the Trump administration may revoke that MOU, close observers contend that ICE is now ignoring its edict whether or not it's revoked. "Under this administration, ICE agents are feeling like they can do whatever they want," the former Labor Department official says.

That violates both the letter and spirit of American labor law. Since the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, every Labor Department—Democrat and Republican alike—has determined that one's immigration status is irrelevant at the workplace. "If you work, you get paid, and you get paid at least the minimum wage," the official add. "The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to people who work in this country."

But as the Trump administration continues to ramp up its aggressive immigration agenda, certain employers feel freer to ignore the law, hire more—not fewer—undocumented workers, not pay them the wages to which they are entitled, and save on labor costs.

What adds to the concerns of activists and attorneys is that the more immigrant workers submit to these conditions, the more widespread they are likely to become. "The problem is that this results in even more violations, because unscrupulous employers who think their workers won't report them will think they can act this way with impunity," Cote says.

For Enrique, initiating a formal complaint was not an easy decision.

The minimum wage in Mexico was raised last December to 80 pesos a day, which is less than $4. If deported, he doesn't think he could afford to support his family. "If I go back to Mexico, they are not going to be able to eat; they're able to eat because I work here," he says. "I'm here out of necessity, not out of desire."

Nevertheless, he's willing to take a risk that many other immigrants these days are not. "If something happens to me," he says, "I'll have to live with it."


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Enlighten Radio:The Poetry Show, Storytelling with Fanny and Stas, the Dunwich Horror

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: The Poetry Show, Storytelling with Fanny and Stas, the Dunwich Horror
Link: http://www.enlightenradio.org/2017/06/the-poetry-show-storytelling-with-fanny.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/