RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Imperative Print
Sunday, 20 April 2014 14:14

Parry writes: "After the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias – European and U.S. diplomats pushed for a quick formation of a new government out of fear that otherwise these far-right ultra-nationalists would be left in total control."

Neo-Nazis at Ukrainian protests. (photo: Drugoi)
Neo-Nazis at Ukrainian protests. (photo: Drugoi)


Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Imperative

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

20 April 14

 

fter the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias – European and U.S. diplomats pushed for a quick formation of a new government out of fear that otherwise these far-right ultra-nationalists would be left in total control, one of those diplomats told me.

The comment again underscores the inconvenient truth of what happened in Ukraine: neo-Nazis were at the forefront of the Kiev coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, a reality that the U.S. government and news media have been relentlessly trying to cover up.

Although real-time reports from the scene in February chronicled armed and organized militias associated with the neo-Nazi Svoboda party and the Right Sektor attacking police with firebombs and light weapons, that information soon became a threat to the Western propaganda theme that Yanukovych fled simply because peaceful protesters occupied the Maidan square.

So, the more troubling history soon disappeared into the memory hole, dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” The focus of the biased U.S. news media is now on the anti-Kiev militants in the Russian-ethnic areas of eastern Ukraine who have rejected the authority of the coup regime and are insisting on regional autonomy.

The new drumbeat in the U.S. press is that those militants must disarm in line with last week’s agreement in Geneva involving the United States, European Union, Russia and the “transitional” Ukrainian government. As for those inconvenient neo-Nazi militias, they have been incorporated into a paramilitary “National Guard” and deployed to the east to conduct an “anti-terrorist” campaign against the eastern Ukrainian protesters, ethnic Russians whom the neo-Nazis despise.

The new role for the neo-Nazi militias was announced last week by Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, who declared on Twitter, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.”

Parubiy is himself a well-known neo-Nazi, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991. The party blended radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy also formed a paramilitary spinoff, the Patriots of Ukraine, and defended the awarding of the title, “Hero of Ukraine,” to World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose own paramilitary forces exterminated thousands of Jews and Poles in pursuit of a racially pure Ukraine.

In the hasty structuring of the post-coup government in February, part of the compromise with the ascendant neo-Nazis was to give them control of four ministries, including Parubiy in the key position heading national security. To give him loyal and motivated forces to strike at the pro-Russian east, he incorporated many of the storm troopers from his Maidan force into the National Guard.

Leaving Out the History

Yet, how is Parubiy described in the U.S. mainstream media? On Sunday, Washington Post correspondent Kathy Lally, who has been one of the most biased journalists covering the Ukraine crisis, wrote a front-page article about the state of Ukraine’s military in which she relied on Parubiy for a key part of her story.

Lally simply identified him as “secretary of the National Security and Defense Council,” without explaining Parubiy’s extreme-right politics or the illegitimate way that he got his position. Lally then let him assert that Russia is “intent on making the government fail and seeing it replaced by one deferring to Moscow.”

But Lally is far from alone in representing the deeply prejudiced “group think” of the U.S. press corps regarding Ukraine. Often the only way that American readers can get any sense of the key role played by the neo-Nazis is in the repeated denials of that reality.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof returned to his family’s ancestral home in Karapchiv in western Ukraine to interview some of its residents and present their views as the true voice of the people.

“To understand why Ukrainians are risking war with Russia to try to pluck themselves from Moscow’s grip, I came to this village where my father grew up,” he wrote. “Even here in the village, Ukrainians watch Russian television and loathe the propaganda portraying them as neo-Nazi thugs rampaging against Russian speakers.

“’If you listen to them, we all carry assault rifles; we’re all beating people,’ Ilya Moskal, a history teacher, said contemptuously.”

Of course, Moskal’s description is hyperbole. The Russian media is not making those claims, although it has noted, for instance, that the neo-Nazi militias – now reformulated as “National Guard” units – did kill three eastern Ukrainian protesters last week, deaths announced by the Kiev government.

But Kristof doesn’t stop there in his nostalgia for his father’s old home town, which he depicts as a noble place where everyone loves the music of Taylor Swift and dreams of their place in a prosperous Europe – if only President Barack Obama would send them weapons to kill Russians (or go “bear-hunting” as Kristof cutely wrote in a previous column).

On Sunday, Kristof wrote: “For people with such fondness for American culture, there is disappointment that President Obama hasn’t embraced Ukraine more firmly.”

Source of Ukraine’s Ills

Kristof also blamed Ukraine’s economic woes on Russia when a more honest explanation would be that the free-market “shock therapy” that Western advisers imposed on Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 allowed a dozen or so well-connected “oligarchs” to plunder the country’s wealth and amass near total economic and political control. They are the principal reason for Ukraine’s pervasive corruption and poverty.

But Kristof appears to be readying his New York Times readers to support the violent crushing of the popular resistance in eastern Ukraine, which was President Yanukovych’s political base. Kristof is a renowned R2Per, urging a “responsibility to protect” civilians from government force, but his sense of responsibility appears to be highly selective, fitting with his favored geopolitical priorities.

More broadly, the U.S. news media’s hiding of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis has become a near obsession, indeed, done in greater uniformity across the mainstream press and even much of the blogosphere than the misguided consensus on Iraq’s WMD in 2002-03 that led to the disastrous Iraq War.

From a purely news point of view, you might think the inclusion of Nazis in a European government for the first time since World War II might make for a good story. But that would go against the preferred American narrative that the protesters in the Maidan were peaceful and idealistic – and that they were set upon by the evil Yanukovych who simply fled because he could no longer withstand their moral pressure.

Left out of this narrative is that Yanukovych signed an agreement on Feb. 21 brokered by three European governments in which he agreed to reduce his powers, accept early elections to vote him out of office, and – most fatefully – pull back the police. It was then that the neo-Nazi militias, from western Ukraine and organized in 100-man brigades, attacked the few remaining police, seized government buildings and sent Yanukovych and many of his officials fleeing for their lives.

As I was told by one of the Western diplomats involved in the aftermath, there was an urgency to cobble together some interim government because otherwise the neo-Nazis would have been left in total control. He said the various parties in parliament moved expeditiously to impeach Yanukovych (though constitutional procedures weren’t followed) and replace him with an interim president and government.

To placate the neo-Nazis, they were given control of four ministries, including the appointment of Parubiy to handle national security and make the neo-Nazi militias part of the official government security apparatus as National Guard.

But that history has been whisked away from information that the mainstream U.S. news media makes available to the American people, all the better to lead them into a new Cold War. [For more on this U.S. propaganda, see “Ukraine. Through the US ‘Looking Glass.’”]


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Mentality of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Undergirds Today's Surveillance State Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 20 April 2014 14:12

Timm writes: "As the filmmakers noted in an interview with the AP, the parallels between Nixon-era FBI whistleblowers and Edward Snowden's NSA revelations are almost eerie in their similarity."

FBI director nominee James Comey oversees a growing part of the US surveillance state. (photo: Gary Cameron/Reuters)
FBI director nominee James Comey oversees a growing part of the US surveillance state. (photo: Gary Cameron/Reuters)


The Mentality of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Undergirds Today's Surveillance State

By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK

20 April 14

 

People forget that the FBI is the NSA's primary partner in domestic spying, which allows them to work in secret.

he new documentary 1971, about the formerly anonymous FBI burglars who exposed the crimes of former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, debuted to a rapt audience at the Tribecca film festival last night. As the filmmakers noted in an interview with the AP, the parallels between Nixon-era FBI whistleblowers and Edward Snowden's NSA revelations are almost eerie in their similarity.

But while the NSA connection seems obvious, the movie will actually shed light on the domestic intelligence agency with far more power over ordinary Americans: the modern FBI.

Everyone seems to forget that the FBI is the NSA's primary partner in the latter's domestic spying operations and that, in fact, the NSA's job would be impossible without them. Whenever you see a company deny giving any data to the NSA remember: It's because it's not the NSA asking (or demanding) the information of them, it's the FBI. They use the same Patriot Act authorities that the NSA does, and yet we have almost no idea what they do with it.

In fact, the FBI has gone to extreme lengths to just keep their surveillance methods a secret from the public, just like the NSA. And the more we learn, the scarier it gets.

On Monday, the EFF revealed through its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that the FBI's "next generation" facial recognition program will have as many as 52m photographs in it next year – including millions that were taken for "non-criminal purposes." It's massive biometric database already “may hold records on as much as one third of the U.S. population,” EFF found.

Lavabit, the email provider once allegedly used by Edward Snowden, also lost an appeal this week, leaving its founder Ladar Levinson in contempt of court for failing to hand over Lavabit's encryption keys to the FBI that would have exposed all 400,000 users of Lavabit. The court failed to rule on the larger issue – leaving the door open for the FBI to try it again.

And we know they want to. Foreign Policy's Shane Harris reported last year, the FBI "carries out its own signals intelligence operations and is trying to collect huge amounts of email and Internet data from U.S. companies – an operation that the NSA once conducted, was reprimanded for, and says it abandoned." The FBI's activities include trying to convince "telecom carriers and Internet service providers to install [port readers] on their networks so that the government can collect large volumes of data about emails and Internet traffic."

We also know they routinely get cell phone location information without a warrant. (If you want to see how your cell phone location information reveals almost every detail of your life, watch this amazing ACLU video.) We also know they're using Stingray devices, which are fake cell phone towers that vacuum up all cell phone activity in a particular area.

We know that the FBI is still issuing thousands of oversight-free National Security Letters a year, despite multiple government reports detailing systematic abuse, and a federal court ruling that they are unconstitutional last year. (The ruling was put on hold pending appeal.)

The FBI has pushed Congress and the White House – and reportedly quietly lobbied the tech companies – to support a dangerous overhaul to wiretapping laws that would require Internet companies like Google and Facebook to create a backdoor into their services, giving the FBI direct access if they get the requisite legal authorities. And, at the same time, the FBI also wants to be able to expand their ability to hack suspects' computers.

(At least some judges have been pushing back, noting that the trove of information that the FBI can get from hacking suspects is often far beyond what the agency's investigation requires.)

Worse, Wired discovered FBI training materials in 2012 that told agents they had the "ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on freedoms of others," in national security cases. The materials were quickly withdrawn when they became public.

All of this leads to why a comprehensive report released by ACLU late in 2013 called the FBI a "secret domestic intelligence agency" that "regularly overstepped the law, infringing on Americans' constitutional rights while overzealously pursuing its domestic security mission."

After watching 1971, or reading Betty Medsger's corresponding book The Burglary, it should be a scandal to everyone that the FBI building is still named after J. Edgar Hoover. Unfortunately, his ghost also still seems to permeate in much of what they do.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Solidarity and Social Change in Aisle 5 Print
Sunday, 20 April 2014 14:03

Berrigan writes: 'Sorry everyone,' the checkout girl addressed the line forming behind me. 'She's got WIC.' The word sounded like a curse, a logjam, a headache.

 (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


Solidarity and Social Change in Aisle 5

By Frida Berrigan, Waging Nonviolence, openDemocracy

20 April 14

 

he girl behind the checkout counter at Shop Rite sighed deeply and pushed her manager call button. A slightly older girl shuffled over wearily.

“WIC,” the checkout girl said, turning the three letters that stand for Women, Infants and Children — the government-funded supplemental nutrition program — into a long whine.

The manager mumbled, moved her out of the way and proceeded to look over my special WIC checks.

“You can’t get that brand of tuna fish,” she admonished.

“I know,” I said. “But you are out of the store brand.”

Another long sigh and she was gone.

“Sorry everyone,” the checkout girl addressed the line forming behind me. “She’s got WIC.”

The word sounded like a curse, a logjam, a headache. While the manager was gone, the girl swiped my groceries. Store brand peanut butter, a gallon of 2 percent milk, $10 worth of fresh vegetables and fruits, bags of rice and beans, a loaf of whole wheat bread, two boxes of cereal, and four pounds of tofu.

“You can’t get this with WIC,” she said sharply, like she had caught me trying to game the system.

“I can actually. I get tofu instead of some of my milk. See it’s right there on the ticket.”

“I’ve never seen anyone get this before,” she responded.

“It’s right there on the ticket. See: four pounds of tofu.”

She looked, not really believing it was going to be there, but it was and eventually she swiped it through. Shopping with government benefits is always an adventure. You can’t be anonymous and you definitely can’t use the self checkouts. Every purchase is scrutinized and questioned before being approved.

“I have my own bags,” I said brightly, trying to stuff everything into my cloth sacks and telegraph apology and contrition to the people behind me. Luckily, I have a gorgeous and effervescent son who flirts with everyone. A smile and a wave from Seamus dissolved the impatience and judgment from people in the line. The manager returned with six cans of StarKist tuna.

“We’re out of our brand. I’ll override and you can ring these up,” she told the checkout girl. I smiled my thanks and a few minutes later, I was out.

I should not have felt so bad, and I’m not alone. In fact I am one of 8.5 million Americans who use WIC benefits each month. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture which is responsible for the program, WIC serves 53 percent of infants born in the United States. So, my children, Madeline and Seamus, are part of the majority!

I have since learned that employees at another nearby grocery store are older, better trained and more respectful of customers using WIC, especially because many of them are mothers from the local submarine base. Now, I try to avoid the teenage checkout girls.

There is the twin sense of stigma and solidarity that comes along with shopping with state benefits. I feel a little naked and judged when I am standing in line, and taking extra time. But along with that minor discomfort comes a large helping of empathy when I see a woman looking utterly lost in the cereal aisle.

I step out of my supermarket somnolence to point out the little WIC symbols below some of the price tags and tell her that she can mix and match among the WIC-approved cereals (no Fruit Loops or Count Choculas allowed), as long as the total weight is 38 ounces. Seems easy, right?

Not so. The number of times I have added up incorrectly and held up the checkout line as a result is embarrassing. Being a WIC shopper also helps me stay patient and friendly when someone ahead of me hits a snag with their benefits.

I still mess up sometimes, even though I have been using WIC since I found out I was pregnant with Seamus more than two years ago. I put the wrong kind of cereal or eggs on the conveyor belt or grab the wrong brand of peanut butter. In one recent trip to the grocery store, WIC checks purchased $30.32 worth of staples for our family and then I bought another $35.41 items not covered under the program, including potatoes, vanilla extract, spaghetti, ingredients for granola and some fish sticks — something I never expected to buy, but they are quick, full of protein and not very expensive.

WIC takes a lot of work. Every two months or so, I have an appointment with a nutritionist who asks questions about what Seamus and I are eating and how the checks are working out. When I was pregnant, they weighed me on each visit and kept track of my weight on a chart, causing me no small bit of anxiety when I went above the curve of what was supposed to be acceptable. Periodically, we have to submit forms from Seamus’ pediatrician and my doctor to WIC so they can track his weight gain and both of our general health.

What’s more, WIC can be downright confusing. Sweet potatoes are allowed but white potatoes are not. Garlic and fresh herbs do not count as vegetables. WIC shoppers have to pay very close attention to the weights of their selections — 16 ounces of peanut butter is not allowed. The jar has to be 18 ounces. You can get brown eggs, but not organic eggs. You can buy reduced price vegetables and fruit, but in most instances you’ll have to walk the checkout person through the process. You must buy everything on your check at once, even if you know you can’t use two gallons of milk before it goes bad.

The choice of products covered by WIC is not random or haphazard. The U.S. Department of Agriculture just released a 104 page report along with an announcement that for the first time in 34 years, the WIC package would be changed. Yogurt, canned mackerel and whole wheat pasta have been added to the list of acceptable foods, and the allotment of fresh, canned and frozen vegetables has been increased. The powers that be also loosened the rules for who can purchase soy based milks, and under what circumstances. We get the tofu, extra cheese and peanut butter because I am breastfeeding. Women who aren’t breastfeeding can get formula through WIC, which is a really good thing because formula is expensive and it goes fast.

We just updated our WIC enrollment to add Baby Madeline, and now we are getting eight gallons of milk each month. That’s a lot of milk! I grew up on powdered milk and don’t really drink the real stuff. Nor does Seamus. Rosena, my seven-year-old stepdaughter, will sit down to a cup of milk, but she is the only one in the family and is only with us half of every week. So we pour milk on our cereal and make yogurt from whatever is left over. Then we make yogurt cheese from the yogurt, and cheesecake or veggie dip from the yogurt cheese. We also give away a lot of milk and yogurt to friends and family.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining. WIC helps us to stretch our limited budget for food, and it fills our pantry with staples. And being part of the program is a way of deepening my understanding of my community. I connect with people in the WIC waiting room and the grocery store checkout line in a way I would not otherwise.

WIC is credited with decreasing obesity and instilling healthy eating habits in young children. In many cases the program makes the difference between full bellies and empty ones. WIC nutritionists and case workers are all trained lactation consultants and they are informative, upbeat and relentless in pushing breast feeding as best for mother and baby. And they get results. Education, encouragement, enthusiasm, resources and support get women breastfeeding. According to a new USDA report, “Among WIC state agencies that reported breastfeeding data for 2012, 67 percent of all 6- to 13-month-old infants were currently breastfed or were breastfed at some time, compared with 63 percent in 2010.”

There is still a long way to go though. Save the Children ranked the United States last in policies that support breastfeeding among 36 high-income nations — policies like paid maternity leave, nursing breaks at work and the percentage of hospitals that are “baby friendly.” The United States pays for these failings. Low rates of breastfeeding add an estimated $13 billion to annual medical costs and they led to 911 extra deaths in 2010, according to a study in Pediatrics.

There are lactivists who organize nurse-ins at airports, restaurants and corporate headquarters to make the point that breastfeeding in public should be considered normal. But having spent lots of time in WIC waiting rooms, supermarket checkout lines and neighborhood play groups with mothers who are not breast feeding, I know it’s not just about modesty or not having the right kind of cover up.

It is definitely not that these women want to shortchange their children. The slogan “breast is best” is just alliteration if you are working a 10-hour shift at minimum wage with no place to use a breast pump or take a nursing break. All the education and support in the world can’t change these conditions — it takes societal transformation too.

Let’s lactivate on that.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Rick Perry Hopes Combination of Wearing Glasses and Not Talking Will Make Him Seem Smarter Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 20 April 2014 13:15

Borowitz writes: "After outfitting Perry with designer eyewear, aides sent him on the road to reintroduce himself to voters, but the response, Mr. Dorrinson said, was underwhelming: 'The problem was, he was still talking.'"

Texas Gov. Rick Perry wearing glasses. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)
Texas Gov. Rick Perry wearing glasses. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)


Rick Perry Hopes Combination of Wearing Glasses and Not Talking Will Make Him Seem Smarter

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

20 April 14

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

ith an eye toward a Presidential run in 2016, Rick Perry, the Texas governor, is hoping that a two-pronged strategy of wearing glasses and not speaking will make him appear smarter to voters, aides to the Governor confirmed today.

“After the 2012 Republican primary, we knew that we needed to solve what we called the Governor’s smartness problem,” said Harland Dorrinson, an aide to Perry. “The fix that we came up with was glasses, but, as it turned out, that was only half the solution.”

After outfitting Perry with designer eyewear, aides sent him on the road to reintroduce himself to voters, but the response, Mr. Dorrinson said, was underwhelming: “The problem was, he was still talking.”

A round of focus groups convinced aides that only through a combination of wearing glasses and not emitting any sounds could Perry overcome voters’ initial impressions of him.

At a recent political stop in San Antonio, the newly minted Governor Perry was on display, wearing his glasses and gesticulating expressively while saying nothing for thirty minutes.

“Our focus groups show people no longer know what Rick Perry is thinking,” said Mr. Dorrinson. “That’s a huge improvement.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
UN Panel: Renewables, Not Nukes, Can Solve Climate Crisis Print
Sunday, 20 April 2014 08:18

Wasserman writes: "The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has left zero doubt that we humans are wrecking our climate."

The wind, sun, and biomass are three renewable energy sources. (photo: WikiCommons)
The wind, sun, and biomass are three renewable energy sources. (photo: WikiCommons)


UN Panel: Renewables, Not Nukes, Can Solve Climate Crisis

By Harvey Wasserman, Common Dreams

20 April 14

 

he authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has left zero doubt that we humans are wrecking our climate.

It also effectively says the problem can be solved, and that renewable energy is the way to do it, and that nuclear power is not.

The United Nations’ IPCC is the world’s most respected authority on climate.

This IPCC report was four years in the making.  It embraces several hundred climate scientists and more than a thousand computerized scenarios of what might be happening to global weather patterns.

The panel’s work has definitively discredited the corporate contention that human-made carbon emissions are not affecting climate change.  To avoid total catastrophe, says the IPCC, we must reduce the industrial spew of global warming gasses by 40-70 percent of 2010 levels.

Though the warning is dire, the report offers three pieces of good news.

First, we have about 15 years to slash these emissions.

Second, renewable technologies are available to do the job.

And third, the cost is manageable.

Though 2030 might seem a tight deadline for a definitive transition to Solartopia, green power technologies have become far simpler and quicker to install than their competitors, especially atomic reactors. They are also far cheaper, and we have the capital to do it.

The fossil fuel industry has long scorned the idea that its emissions are disrupting our Earth’s weather.

The oil companies and atomic reactor backers have dismissed the ability of renewables to provide humankind’s energy needs.

But the IPCC confirms that green technologies, including efficiency and conservation, can in fact handle the job---at a manageable price.

“It doesn’t cost the world to save the planet,” says Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist who led the IPCC team.

The IPCC report cites nuclear power as a possible means of lowering industrial carbon emissions. But it also underscores considerable barriers involving finance and public opposition.  Joined with widespread concerns about ecological impacts, length of implementation, production uncertainties and unsolved waste issues, the report’s positive emphasis on renewables virtually guarantees nuclear’s irrelevance.

Some climate scientists have recently advocated atomic energy as a solution to global warming.  But their most prominent spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts about the current generation of reactors, including Fukushima, which he calls “that old technology.”

Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of reactors.

But the designs are untested, with implementation schedules stretching out for decades.  Financing is a major obstacle as is waste disposal and widespread public opposition, now certain to escalate with the IPCC’s confirmation that renewables can provide the power so much cheaper and faster.

With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions the IPCC has effectively timed out any chance a new generation of reactors could help.

And with its clear endorsement of green power as a tangible, doable, affordable solution for the climate crisis, the pro-nuke case has clearly suffered a multiple meltdown.

With green power, says IPCC co-chair Jim Skea, a British professor, a renewable solution is at hand. “It’s actually affordable to do it and people are not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations about improved standards of living.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 Next > End >>

Page 2896 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN