Boston Magazine's Unflattering Look at the Elizabeth Warren campaign

I saw and read this article just after it came out... (5.00 / 1)

I thought the first quote was telling.  "Then she started campaigning".  

Elizabeth Warren is not very personable and no matter how hard the Democrats try they can't make her likeable...  That is a big problem and a serious reason she is dropping in the polls...

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 13:08:21 PM UTC

So true (0.00 / 0)

Her persona is that of a tenured teacher, imagining that she has something interesting to say and that her audience is dying to hear it.

Beyond telling us she's for the middle class (BTW, is any politician on record as being against the middle class); telling us she was raised on the ragged edge of the middle class (much the same as most of Americans were raised in the 40s and 50s); telling us that Scott Brown is for Wall Street (whatever that means), all the while with that finger wagging, condescending tone.

She's tied at the polls for the same reason Yellow Dogs won in the south.

A bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas.

 

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 14:55:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yellow dog democrat (0.00 / 0)

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 18:01:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great article. Not exactly "unflattering." In fact, quite the opposite. (0.00 / 0)

"It rapidly all goes down hill from there" is a rather extreme interpretation of this article.  If you read the whole thing, 80% of it merely reports Warren's life and work up to her life before the campaign -- which is actually quite flattering, because it stands on its own.

After the 2008 financial crisis, Warren was hailed as a visionary. Senator Harry Reid tapped her to chair the bipartisan Congressional oversight panel set up to ensure that every dollar of the $700 billion in TARP funds handed to the banks was accounted for. Warren produced in-depth monthly reports, appeared on television at every opportunity, and regularly hosted public discussions that became skewering sessions of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. It was her work on this panel-her strident criticisms of Wall Street, the Fed, and Geithner alike-that made her famous.

Warren enrolled in the city's most competitive public school (she graduated at age 16), where she developed a passion for debate that led to a full scholarship at George Washington University in 1966.

Warren's interest in financial law and regulation began ... in 1979 and found herself intrigued by a new code Congress had passed that made it easier to file for bankruptcy... [Warren and her colleague produced] the largest empirical study of consumer bankruptcy ever done in this country.

Warren has said that when she started her bankruptcy project, she expected to find that those who'd filed were "all a bunch of cheaters." But what she ­discovered startled her. "I uncovered how families who worked hard and played by the rules got turned completely upside down by a medical problem, a job loss, or a family breakup," she recalls. That realization has shaped the bulk of her life's work.

And that life and work, in my eyes, blows away Scott Brown's.  Intellectually, legally, policy-wise, he is a lightweight and she is a heavyweight.  He is young, friendly, with a nice smile, but just not very bright.  Not very passionate or knowledgable about the issues beyond the typical Republican platform.  He's got no specific policy expertise.  No intellectual authority.  I have the sense that he does and says what his handlers tell him.  He's go-along-to-get-along.

She is 10 years older, experienced, went across the country to do serious research on the state of the middle class and write books about it, teach about it, get out there and help the public and the government understand the complexities and predatory nature of the financial industry that undergirds our entire economy.  Then when she actually got into Washington to oversee the TARP she started kicking the asses of lobbyist-colluding government officials.

That's the thing some people don't understand here.  There is often an inevitable inverse correlation between "sticking to your principles" and "likability".  If you are in Washington DC kicking ass against the lobbyists who have hijacked our democracy (and their government-employed handmaidens), you're going to make enemies, and at times, you are going to appear shrill and "nagging" -- but that is actually what an advocate should do.  And when your politician and bureaucrat federal colleagues are screwing the country, that is precisely what they need to hear, and what you need to do.  I'm so sick of the go-along-to-get-along politicians of fluff.

This is the problem, but it is a GOOD problem to have.  If you are not pissing off your complacent, corrupt colleagues, then you are doing something wrong.  This is the type of courageous person we desperately need in bought-and-paid for Congress.  And this is not Scott Brown.  I wish it was, but it ain't:

It was an open secret that Warren welcomed taking control of the agency, but her hard-charging ways had left many in Washington-Republicans and Democrats alike-believing that her ideological zeal made her unfit for the role. "Will Elizabeth Warren be as effective as a bureaucrat as she is as a guest on The Daily Show?" Neil Irwin wrote in the Washington Post.

Warren continued her attacks on Geithner, who by then was said to be openly opposing her nomination. In his new book, Bailout, Neil Barofsky, who served as inspector general for TARP, writes that he'd expected Warren to play nice with the Treasury secretary in the hopes of securing the appointment. "But she just lit him up.... I thought it was a remarkably principled act, the exact opposite of what any other person in Washington angling for a high-profile job would have done."

---

by: amfriedman @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 14:59:21 PM UTC

Myopia (0.00 / 0)

You see what you wish to see.

Brown did matriculate from Tufts and then BC law school, a school on par with Rutgers.

Your sense that Brown is a go along get along sort of guy is nonsense, or at least not objective commentary.

Warren, without doubt is a Bankruptcy expert, but otherwise bankrupt on any other policies.  And, bankruptcy scholar doesn't make her expect on any area of policy other than say, Bankruptcy.  

She couldn't even win the appointment to the head of Consumer Protection Financial bureau because while advocating for the creation of the Bureau she managed to piss off her colleagues by yelling slogans at Congress and the Fed.  Which, BTW, wasn't her job.  Her job was to oversee TARP.

Now, if pissing off the other side is good politics, well, YMMV.

 

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 15:37:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surely you do better than that? (0.00 / 0)

Tufts and BC, not bad, though athletics seemed to be Brown's strength in high school, so this could have helped his chances.  

Even though Warren has been a stand-out in academia, I didn't even mention what schools she went to.  That's actually less important.  Lots of soulless intellectuals that don't accomplish much go to Ivy League schools.  

I cited what she has DONE, what she is passionate in the sense of policy.  If you are not passionate about policy, then you are not right for the job of a US Senator.  When I see Brown speak, when I read his quotes, I feel nothing, and learn little.  He gives me the impression he's just going through the motions.  He doesn't seem to have a deep passion for anything politically.  He doesn't study deeply.  He parrots talking points, the same fluff of "we need to lower taxes, protect jobs, and help our small businesses" -- a middle-schooler can do this.

You think my "go-along-to-get-along" comment is nonsense?  Ha.  Here is the "story behind Scott Brown" -- nothing.  In high school, here's his distinction: "He did his work and didn't complain."  And he was a passionate athlete.  That's fine, it makes him a nice chap, but this is not the stuff a statesman makes.
http://www.necn.com/Boston/Pol...

Even Brown's OWN bio only has two paragraphs of actual bio, at the very bottom!  The rest is more campaign brochure talking-points:
http://www.scottbrown.com/abou...

Here's another bio from Time magazine that just, well, isn't exactly stand-out:
http://www.time.com/time/natio...

Unfortunately most Americans don't understand how to evaluate candidates, and elect people based on "identity politics" -- not hard skills, and not even the right soft skills.  I believe this is precisely why we elect small-soul (and small-mind) people that succumb to lobbyist interests -- and we get screwed again and again.

Our electeds... succumb they do.  Have you listened to this NPR episode about non-step special interest fundraising that eats up up to 70% of every legislator's day?  This might blow your mind.  Which candidate do you think is more able to consciously, firmly transcend this culture?  Click here: http://www.thisamericanlife.or...

---

by: amfriedman @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 18:00:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Elizabeth Warren has been a stand out in academia? (0.00 / 0)

Even though Warren has been a stand-out in academia.

I knew it!  Elizabeth Warren stood out from all the others because she is an Indian.  The hate and lack of diversity in academia is sickening...

Can't they treat her like an ordinary white person instead of the Cherokee?  Why must they show their hate all the time?   This is why I didn't go to Harvard....  Its the hate....

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:44:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did anyone even know Elizabeth Warren before the CFPB? (5.00 / 1)

People talk about her as though she were some kind of legendary heroine?  A regular Annie Oakley or something.  She wrote a couple books (with her daughter) and taught Law at Harvard, big deal!  We don't know if she contributed 1% to the writing of the books - or 100%.  All we know is she was somehow involved.  

She talks in her latest advertisement about how she is not a Washington insider, then the next picture in the ad is her standing next to Barack Obama.  How can someone not be an insider when she is pictured with the President, and she CREATED an entire bureau of government aimed at making business harder to do for banks.  Sounds about as 'inside' as it gets....

It also bothers me that she suggests that she has been fighting for the middle class her whole life.  Bullsh*t!!!  Writing books does not make you a fighter - it makes you an author.  She may have wanted to fight for middle class people, but what did she actually DO to help them aside from offer questionable advise as to who to blame for economic problems?  Was she ever elected to any group to fight for the middle class?  NOPE!  She has never been elected to anything, ever!  You can't make up your own legend and causes simply because you believe in something.  I believe in the political process and have written on this blog, and others, for years.  Does that make me a champion of political causes?  Nope, it makes me an opinion writer - a blogger!  And that is all....

This is Elizabeth's modus operandi - pretend you are something and people will think you are that.  Tell people you are an Indian and they will believe you.  Tell people you created a recipe and they will believe it is yours.  Tell people you are a champion of the middle class and they will believe you.  When will the liberal left start to ask for proof about anything?  When will they vet their own people?  

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 17:44:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, did you read any bio about her? (0.00 / 0)

You suggest that she wrote 1% of these books?  Your statement here reveals your outrageous bias against her.  

Did you not read her curriculum vitae filled with over 20 years of HER WRITING?  http://www.adamfriedman.org/wp...

Did you not read the part in the Boston article about her executing the most comprehensive study of consumer bankruptcy this nation has ever seen?  You don't see that as a contribution and an authoritative guiding light for policy?  You don't see this as a proven demonstration of her passion to tirelessly see a project through that helps the public interest?

What are you smoking?

"Writing books does not make you a fighter" ... so what makes you a fighter?  If you take on boxing on behalf of middle-class families?  Tae Kwon Do?  Join the Army National Guard like Scott Brown?  Are you still a fighter if you are never deployed in a combat zone?

Seriously though, you must be an elected official to be a fighter for anyone?  That's a pretty government-dependent attitude, don't you think?

Just because she had the expertise and high profile to be picked to build the CFPB, immediately she becomes a suspicious "Washington insider"?  Then you wonder where she was and what she has done before the CFPB in the title of your post.  Do you know why you don't know (beside you not actually reading her bios)?  Because she was unknown in Washington.  AKA, an outsider.

---

by: amfriedman @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 18:30:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

College professor = good senator = NOT (0.00 / 0)

How does a college professor make a good legislator ?

Scott Brown - worked his way up from selectman through state government to senator and managed to get elected as a republican in very blue state. You don't get re-elected if you aren't effective.

Elizabeth Warren has never run for public office before  -  what skill set does she bring ?

She writes good books, if this is the requirement  maybe Stephen King should run ?

---

by: roarkarchitect @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 22:17:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My answer to your question is in my previous comments. Maybe you should read them. (0.00 / 0)

I've explained exactly how this particular law professor and federal government watchdog/administrator makes a far better legislator than our political lightweight Scott Brown.  Writing good books is not a requirement.  But it is a demonstration of passion, dedication, and (if the books, chapters, and journal entries she wrote are good) excellent communication skills.  

Seeing as we have one of the nation's least competitive electoral environments, attaining local and state government positions does not impress me.  Brown's attaining these is a commendable start, but certainly no shining achievement that tells me much more than his capability to do and say the "right things" to appeal to voters.  Not rocket science.

---

by: amfriedman @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 22:52:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and knowledge and insight (0.00 / 0)

I forgot, the best point about writing books is it is basically proof positive that you "know what you're talking about" when you're talking about a complex topic, like consumer finance, banking, investments, and where they interact with the law.  It is not your assistant or aide handing you a one-sheet 30 minutes before a meeting... which is, sadly, the way things are commonly done in our houses of law-making.

---

by: amfriedman @ Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 22:56:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good academic, bad politics. (5.00 / 2)

I see your point - Warren is a talented academic. She's studied the hell out of everything she put her mind to, and traveled the country talking to people, etc., etc. She's published so as not to perish, she's followed her academic credentials to the corridors of power in D.C., and she's managed to show that she has some moxie, and pissed people off. Good for her.

I agree she may be a good policy analyst, a good research scholar, and probably a decent professor of law. She may even make a good politician.

Academics, as a general rule, make poor politicians. They usually find that the process of giving up to get something is anathema to their sheltered, unquestioned careers writing papers in academia. They drown in minutiae.  Granted, Warren seems to appreciate conflict. She does seem like a bit of a fighter and that's a good quality.

The problem is, though, she's got absolutely no idea of what is actually right for this country. Her liberal left wing politics have gotten us where we stand, boiling in a pot of ever expanding entitlements from which we will never emerge without extensive reform. Her plan? Higher taxes on wealth builders. That is not the solution. Take away 100% of the incomes of the 1% (by the way, she is in the 1% with her $3 million Cambridge home) and we make a microscopic dent in the trillions of debt we are burdening our children with.

She rails on about education, saying children are drowning in debt, while she pulls down $350,000 as a Harvard professor.

She asks us to trust her with crucial public policy decisions that affect my children's lives, and yet she won't address a crucial issue of character - whether she lied about her heritage, claiming she is Native American!

Warren may be a great policy analyst, a phenomenal scholar, a MENSA member for all I know, but her politics, causes and side are all wrong.

Yes, Brown seems like a lightweight in comparison. Most politicians in DC would be a lightweight academically compared to her. His ideas are on the right side, though. Brown is honest and likable, where Warren is preachy and academic. Brown seems like 'everyman' when Warren seems like the professor you hated in college, aloof and distant.

Brown represents me. (I have two master's degrees, BTW and am a professional accountant) Warren represents her ivory tower colleagues sheltered at Harvard and people who somehow misplace scholarly knowledge and talents for political prowess.

We don't need an academic to tout research in Congress, especially one whose idea of capitalism is at best, suspect. Brown may be no rocket scientist, but he is at least on the right side - ours.

---

by: dingo656 @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 00:57:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very well said Dingo656.... (0.00 / 0)

I hope we hear more from you....

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:36:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talented acedemic? (0.00 / 0)

Not everyone agrees.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12...

"Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct."

(Emphasis added.)

There's a crap-ton more in the whole 60=page review. He knocks her research from page one.

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld

---

by: TLCWeld @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:35:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not a pretty review (0.00 / 0)

Just read the intro - how did she get a job at Harvard ?

---

by: roarkarchitect @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:50:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well-written, but I'm not convinced (0.00 / 0)

First you concede that Warren is not your typical academic -- because we all see the specific examples -- that she has brought her ideas to the general populace and used them to make waves in DC on their merits.  

But, then you still cling to general arguments about the average academic who gets drowned in minutiae and cannot stomach "giving up to get something" and thus makes a poor politician (the whole logic of which I find way uselessly general anyhow, like saying all accounts are hopelessly linear and uncreative and would be horrible at painting).  How can you still make this argument in the case of proven fighter and everyman financial advisor Warren?  

Then you say her cite her "liberal left wing politics."  How liberal?  How left wing?  And you say her "idea of capitalism is at best, suspect."  Do actually have writings of her "idea of capitalism" to back that up?  Or are you inferring/conflating this primarily from the "you didn't build that" soundbyte hype, that she is running under the Democrat banner, what?

I happened to be perusing her website when I found this "left wing" concept:

Simplifying Regulation. From Northampton to Gloucester, the small business owners I've met aren't looking for a special deal. They just want a level playing field - a fair shot at the chance to make it. I am glad Congress reauthorized the Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program last December, making funding more predictable to innovative small companies. But that's not enough. We need to streamline regulations so small business owners don't get tied up in red tape or strangled by hidden tricks and traps. We need to simplify the tax code, which is way too complicated - and rigged to create loopholes for big corporations with armies of lawyers to wiggle through. Washington works for those who can hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists, but we need for Washington to work for small businesses.

From: http://elizabethwarren.com/iss...

And then, this notion of personality -- the identity politics.  You say "Brown is honest and likable, where Warren is preachy and academic. Brown seems like 'everyman' when Warren seems like the professor you hated in college, aloof and distant."

Again, 1) I question the evidence you have (not shown) to make these subjective evaluations of personal style.  2) It is FAR EASIER to manufacture a "likable" image (particularly if you have plenty of media/modeling experience) than to write a complex book and to stand up to your peers when they are doing the wrong thing, so you really shouldn't rate this "smile and nod" quality all that high on your list of criteria.  3) In the final balance of evaluating who is fit for the job of advocating for good public policy, what percentage of your evaluation is their "likability" -- really?  Personally I put it at about 5%.

What is much more unusual is a politician who will actively nag and cajole others because they have principles to uphold, even in the face of a culture of go-along-to-get-along fear and anxiety from electoral competition and the incessant pandering to special interest funders to get the bread to keep opponents at bay.  Have you listened to this excellent radio bit yet?  http://www.thisamericanlife.or...

Brown is the type I think, that rolls over.  Warren is the type, I know, that is a proven fighter.  

If I'm wrong about Brown, give me some evidence of his showing serious issue passion and endurance for conflict (not within a campaign obviously).  

Brown delivers soundbytes.  Warren delivers dog bites.  

---

by: amfriedman @ Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 23:06:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have owned about 100 books on finance and investing in my life..... (0.00 / 0)

I buy them at library books sales for 50 cents each.

Most of them are rubbish and overwhelmingly filled with skewed ideas of how to make a fortune by investing in cow bellies or hog futures.

In fact, I think I saw Elizabeth Warren's last book in one of the piles....

Anyone can write a book.....

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:40:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Warren is representative of the financial problems in academia (0.00 / 0)

I took a look at her  bankruptcy books - none of the course books are under $150.00 and she changes numbering in the editions (at least according to one reviewer)  to kill the used market. Samuelson used to pull this crap with his economic books. She is trying to milk as much money out of her students as possible.

She is earning 350K - to campaign for the Senate and not teach. Wouldn't the left be in a twitter if someone ran for political office while being paid as an officer of the Koch Corporation ?

Lets not forget the college she (doesn't) teach at doesn't pay taxes - on their investment earning or their facilities.  

Middle class families are paying 55K to send their kids to college and  have become indentured servants  to the highly paid faculty and administrators.

She is a bankruptcy professor - might make a good bankruptcy judge - but a Senator - no.

 

---

by: roarkarchitect @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:45:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't misquote me AMfreidman..... (0.00 / 0)

I said we don't know whether she wrote 1% or 100% of the books.  Can you tell me what percent was her contribution and what percent was her daughter's?  And when you answer please remember that for every percent you add to Elizabeth you take away from her daughter.   At best, they offered half each...

And she has a 'resume', not a curriculum vitae.  The last time a person sent me a curriculum vitae I threw it away after scribbling 'arrogant bastard' across the top..

I do know many of her works were questioned by colleagues who questioned her research methods and called them amatuerish.

She could be a fighter if she actually 'fought' and not in a military sense, for the middle class.  Did she ever work for a credit bureau?  Did she ever council people on debt?  Did she ever work for one of the banks to stop the 'questionable' lending practises?  Nope, she sat on the sideline in no offical capacity and called balls and strikes...

And may I remind you  - she was never really asked to lead the CFPB was she?  When her name came up for nomination her own President, Barack Obama, said "Um, I don't think so"....  How embarrassing is that - to not get picked to lead your own agency?  LOL....

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:35:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL - Nice resume! So basically your saying she has ZERO experience in the lege. (0.00 / 0)

 

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 14:37:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You must not be a conservative. (4.00 / 1)

A conservative wouldn't fault a candidate on "no experience in the legislature" -- the Founders of this nation preferred that legislators left their station in life for a small period to serve the public and then leave again.  

You can't have it both ways.  You can't be against career politicians and insiders and then fault an outsider for running on no insider experience!  Ha.

---

by: amfriedman @ Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 23:10:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Founders (5.00 / 3)

preferred that members I the United States Senate be chosen by the elected representatives of state legislatures, not by the People...for a damned good reason.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:40:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"You must not be a conservative - A conservative wouldn't fault a candidate on "no experience in the legislature" (0.00 / 0)

Nice try.  

FACT - The woman has ZERO experience dude.  Sorry, she doesn't get my vote for US Senate.  Maybe if she was running for a shitty little state rep seat but US Senate? Seriously?

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 15:21:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FACT? Your confidence in your own ignorance is frightening. (0.00 / 0)

Um, nice try yourself.

FACT: she led the oversight of the TARP bailout as well as the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  She has valuable, in-the-trenches federal level experience.  And she is proven fighter -- on OUR behalf -- against extremely connected Wall Street insiders and their lobbyist agents.

She was on the cover of Time magazine in May 2010 for this work: http://www.time.com/time/cover...

Oh, and here is where she saved us taxpayers $1 billion:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/3...

---

by: amfriedman @ Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:33:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey EaBo...... (0.00 / 0)

When your article was titled "Boston Magazine's unflattering look at the Elizabeth Warren campaign", I thought you might be showing us the rear view photo of her on the motorcycle....:)

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:46:32 AM UTC