RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Bernie Sanders's Speech on Socialism Made a Bold Case for Real Freedom Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50468"><span class="small">Luke Savage, Jacobin</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 June 2019 13:15

Savage writes: "Who, after all, is ultimately responsible for problems like unemployment, low wages, high medical costs, and chronic job insecurity?"

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) arrives at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame Dinner marching with Fight For $15 fast food workers on June 9, 2019 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) arrives at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame Dinner marching with Fight For $15 fast food workers on June 9, 2019 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


Bernie Sanders's Speech on Socialism Made a Bold Case for Real Freedom

By Luke Savage, Jacobin

16 June 19


Bernie Sanders’s speech on socialism made a bold case for real freedom — the freedom to flourish, not just the right to be left alone.

esterday, in a major address at George Washington University, Bernie Sanders outlined his vision of a democratic socialism for the twenty-first century.

Among his most expansive to date, the speech embraced a few themes the senator has been invoking for years: the urgent need for universal social programs like Medicare For All and liveable wages; the unchecked tyranny of corporate actors like Amazon and Disney; the growing divide in American society between ordinary people and an entrenched class of wealthy elites. Echoing these in an international context, Sanders also warned of the growing threat posed by an increasingly menacing authoritarian right melding corporatism and xenophobia with a disdain for civil liberties — a current that’s become all-too visible in the United States under Donald Trump.

Heavy on references to FDR and the New Deal, Sanders attempted a difficult balancing act: embracing and championing the socialist label in a country traditionally hostile to it while pitching socialist values in terms designed to be legible to the average person. To this end, he also invoked Martin Luther King Jr’s famous declaration that America has “socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.”

The most novel use of this strategy arguably came in the speech’s second half as Sanders sought to advance a vision of freedom rooted in economic rights, including the right to a decent job that pays a living wage; to quality health care, to a complete education, to affordable housing, to a clean environment, and a secure retirement.

“Freedom is an often-used word,” declared Sanders, “but it’s time we took a hard look at what that word actually means.” He continued:

Ask yourself: what does it actually mean to be free? Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick, or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital? Are you truly free if you cannot afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive? Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing, and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200 percent interest rates? Are you truly free if you are seventy years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire? Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income? Are you truly free if you are forced to work sixty or eighty hours a week because you can’t find a job that pays a living wage? Are you truly free if you are a mother or father with a newborn baby but you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave?

Although Sanders invoked the New Deal — a social-democratic movement whose program was only partially adopted — his pitch nevertheless had firmly socialist undertones, pitting the market and the powerful private tyrannies it enables in opposition to freedom itself.

Who, after all, is ultimately responsible for problems like unemployment, low wages, high medical costs, and chronic job insecurity? Most of America’s liberals now so thoroughly accept the rule of the market that they’re unable to offer a precise or satisfactory answer — preferring to cast social ills as innocent corollaries of an ultimately desirable economic system. (A conservative and unambitious policy agenda naturally follows.)

Socialists, on the other hand, have long understood that class stratification, poverty, and economic deprivation are in fact both created and necessitated by capitalism: imposed on the majority by the imperative to generate profits, cut labor costs, and commodify every aspect of life.

Real freedom therefore requires a whole lot more than the basic civil and political rights enshrined in a liberal constitutional order. It is simply not enough to be free from arbitrary coercion by other people or the state — true freedom also means independence from the dictates of the market: its bosses, its tycoons, its profiteers, its expropriation of the wealth workers collectively create.

By framing the argument for his program in these terms, Sanders is taking up the difficult but necessary task of reclaiming freedom from the Right.

The conservative movement’s decades-long assault on the postwar settlement, after all, carried its own conception of freedom — one rooted firmly in markets and the supposed agency of individuals within them. Key to this were bootstrap idioms like “personal responsibility,” which cast hardship as the product of individual failure and grotesque wealth as the preeminent marker of social value and success.

This populist thrust, though key to the New Right’s triumph in the 1980s, has proven totally illusory to the vast majority now beset by soaring medical bills, tuition fees, cripplingly low wages, and a democratic institutions perpetually disciplined by market pressure. Years of unbound finance, privatization, and neoliberal deregulation have unsurprisingly failed to make people freer, and now threaten to create new and more powerful forms of oligarchy.

Despite what generations of conservative economists and politicians have insisted, equality and freedom are in fact mutually interdependent — the former being an essential precursor to the latter and its natural and indispensable ally.

By advancing economic rights as the basis for freedom, Sanders is in essence turning the Right’s definition on its head. While there remains much more to be done, his campaign is laying the groundwork for a sweeping redefinition of the political and economic orthodoxies that have long dominated American society — and offering millions a richer and more textured definition of freedom than most have ever known.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Don't We Hear About More Species Going Extinct? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32976"><span class="small">John R. Platt, Scientific American</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 June 2019 13:06

Platt writes: "We've been hearing it for years: The world is in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, with species going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster because of human impact on the environment."

The Panamanian golden frog. (photo: Brian Gratwicke/Flickr)
The Panamanian golden frog. (photo: Brian Gratwicke/Flickr)


Why Don't We Hear About More Species Going Extinct?

By John R. Platt, Scientific American

16 June 19


The extinction crisis threatens life all over the planet, but scientists are cautious about declaring a species extinct too quickly

e’ve been hearing it for years: The world is in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, with species going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster because of human impact on the environment.

Most recently a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimated that as many as a million species risk extinction in the coming decades due to human-related activities.

All of which raises the question: If so many species are going extinct, why don’t we hear about new extinctions every day?

The answer to that question is more complex than you might think. Once in a while, the last known individual of a species dies while on display in a zoo or other institution—for example, Martha the passenger pigeon or Toughie the last Rabbs’ tree frog.  But in the vast majority of cases, the existence of the final representative of a species—the “endling”—is unknown. The norm is a species disappearing in the wild, one by one, far from human eyes. No one witnesses it die out. It declines silently until one day it’s just…gone.

1. It Takes Time

And when that happens, it’s not easy for researchers to show that a species has vanished forever.

“Proving the negative is always impossible. Getting close to the demonstration that something must not exist anymore requires a lot of effort,” says H. Resit Akçakaya, professor of ecology and evolution at Stony Brook University. “It’s not sufficient to say that we didn’t see it. You need to have searched for it. Because that takes a lot of time and effort, usually species are not listed as extinct until long after they have actually gone extinct, or we think they were extinct, because we can never know, except for a very few exceptions.”

You’ll find examples of this when searching through the listings on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which details the extinction risk for about 98,500 species. Many listings for rare species include the last time that particular plant or animal was observed by scientists, and that date is often decades in the past.

Take, for example, a Hawaiian bird known as the po?ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma). The IUCN lists the species as “critically endangered (possibly extinct).” The bird hasn’t been seen in the wild since 2004, but it still hasn’t been moved into the “extinct” category. Right now there are 68 other species in that “possibly extinct” category. Hundreds more are still listed as “critically endangered” despite a lack of recent sightings.

The Endangered Species Act takes its time, too. For example, the Eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar) was removed from the endangered species list last year, 80 years after its last confirmed sighting. Biologists spent decades looking for signs of the animal before confirming its extinction.

“We in the conservation field never want to wipe a species off the books until it’s really absolutely solidly, solidly positively dead, dead, dead,” explains Stuart Pimm, the Doris Duke professor of conservation ecology at Duke University and the founder of SavingSpecies. That’s a slow process. “For a long time, there was a rule that said it has to have been unseen for 50 years before you could declare it extinct.”

There are other criteria for declaring a species extinct. For example, a 2005 paper by Stuart Butchart and other conservation experts identified several types of evidence to be used before a species could be considered “possibly extinct.” From the paper:

  • The species’ population decline must be well documented.
  • It must face “severe threatening processes” such as habitat loss or intensive hunting.
  • It must possess attributes known to predispose similar species to extinction, such as a small range or inability to migrate.
  • And surveys have failed to detect it, with due consideration given to how easy or hard it is to observe the species.

Similarly, the paper considers four types of evidence against extinction:

  • Surveys to find the species have been inadequate, perhaps because they were at the wrong time of year or the species lives in hard-to-reach areas.
  • The species is difficult to see, hear or otherwise detect.
  • It’s been reasonably sighted by locals, even if those sightings are unconfirmed.
  • And suitable habitat still exists.

With all of this in mind, it’s likely we’ve lost a lot of species over the past few decades, but scientists are hesitant to formally shift them into the “extinct” category quite yet.

There’s an important reason for that. “There are costs associated with listing a species as extinct, so biologists, understandably, don’t want to declare a species extinct before they are pretty certain,” says Akçakaya.

2. Mistakes Are Costly

The biggest cost: Declaring a species extinct too early can actually lead to its extinction.

That’s called the “Romeo Error,” named after Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” In the play, lovestruck Romeo mistakenly thinks his beloved Juliet is dead, so he takes his own life. That’s not exactly how it would play out in the wild, but when humans incorrectly think a species is extinct when it’s not, the error can lead to the removal of any legal protections for the species or its habitat. That means if the species is later rediscovered, protective measures have to start over at step one—assuming there’s anything left to save at that point.

One of the most well-known cases of the Romeo Error took place in the Philippines, where the island of Cebu experienced so much deforestation that several of its native species were declared extinct early in the 20th century. That included a bird called the Cebu flowerpecker (Dicaeum quadricolor), which was later rediscovered in 1992 in a tiny fragment of remaining forest. Today the bird is still critically endangered, but its populations could have been much healthier if efforts to protect it had not been abandoned decades earlier.

Of course, to experience the Romeo Error, you need a Romeo (or a Juliet) in the first place.

In other words, you need a name.

3. You Can't Declare Extinct What You Don't Know

The world has about 1.7 million described species. Many scientists estimate the total level of biodiversity on the planet at about 8 million, while others say it’s much higher. That means there are a lot of species yet to be identified, named, studied or assessed for their extinction risk.

“Most of the species we know must exist are not yet described,” says Akçakaya. “Since we don’t know most of the species that exist, we don’t know most of the species that are going extinct.”

We find out about some of these unnamed extinctions after the fact—sometimes long after. Two of the four extinctions I’ve reported on so far this year were species that disappeared decades ago but have only just been scientifically identified and named.

But those species were only identified because museums had samples in their collections. Otherwise no one might have noticed that they were gone, let alone known if they had lived at all. We find out about dinosaurs and other extinct prehistoric species through fossil evidence, but most plants and animals degrade and decompose pretty quickly after they die, leaving few signs that they ever existed.

It’s difficult to estimate the numbers of these unknown species, but we do know how many can exist inside intact habitats, and how many rely upon incredibly small, specific microhabitats. And we know that when those habitats disappear, so does what lived in them.

Even for species we’ve identified, we can’t assess their extinction risk if we don’t know much about them. The IUCN Red List includes about 15,000 species in a category called “data deficient”—in other words, we don’t know if they’re at risk or not, or even if they still exist. A 2016 paper by biologist Chris Parsons argued that all of these “data-deficient” species, which are often hard to find and study, should be considered “assumed threatened,”  a step that would encourage policymakers to treat them as at risk rather than just “out of sight, out of mind.”

The same could probably be said for the hundreds of thousands of identified species that haven’t even made it to the IUCN Red List. The Cebu flowerpecker, like so many other critically endangered species, continues to survive. Much as humans are to blame for so many extinctions, we’re also to be credited for helping to prevent some of these species from disappearing altogether.

4. The Last Reason We Don't Announce Many Extinctions: Successes

For examples, look at the California condor, black-footed ferret and Mexican gray wolf. These are just a few of the species that humans nearly drove extinct that have since been saved due to modern and ever-improving conservation techniques.

“When we do find species that are hanging on by their toenails, we are in a better position to save those species from the brink of extinction,” says Pimm. “People find them and they can begin to bring them back.”

These species don’t always bounce back to safe levels, but avoiding extinction is still an achievement. “If a species is critically endangered, and has been critically endangered for the last 20 years, is that a conservation success?” asks Akçakaya. “Perhaps it is, if we can demonstrate that without conservation it would have gone extinct 10 years ago.”

Of course, saving a species requires finding out that it’s endangered early enough to do something about it—not to mention finding the last individuals. “Finding three individuals is not going to get you much,” says Pimm. “The best you can hope for is a male and a female, and there’s a possibility you’ll find that all three are male.”

That, it turns out, is another reason why some species haven’t been declared extinct yet—they’re alive, but unlikely to persist. The most notable example is the northern white rhino, which has just two females left in the world. The species still exists, but for all intents and purposes, it’s a walking case of extinction.

Given all of this, we know that many more species are going extinct than get reported. But how do we know how many are going extinct? We’ll address that question in part II of this article, coming soon.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: When We Kill Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20481"><span class="small">Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 June 2019 12:19

Kristof writes: "The sentence came just three months after the Supreme Court had restored the death penalty in the United States, in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, saying that new safeguards meant that capital punishment would be applied only to the worst of the worst."

Hubert Nathan Myers, left, hugging his uncle, Clifford Williams Jr., during a news conference after their 1976 murder convictions were overturned in March. (photo: Will Dickey/The Florida Times-Union/AP)
Hubert Nathan Myers, left, hugging his uncle, Clifford Williams Jr., during a news conference after their 1976 murder convictions were overturned in March. (photo: Will Dickey/The Florida Times-Union/AP)


When We Kill

By Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

16 June 19


Everything you think you know about the death penalty is wrong.

hereby sentence you to death.”

The words of Judge Clifford B. Shepard filled the courtroom in Jacksonville, Fla., on Oct. 27, 1976. Shepard was sentencing Clifford Williams Jr., whom a jury had just found guilty of entering a woman’s house with a spare key entrusted to him and then shooting her dead from the foot of her bed.

It was a bizarre verdict, for forensics showed that the shots had been fired from outside the house — through the window, breaking the glass and piercing curtains and a screen. Moreover, at the time of the shooting Williams had been attending a birthday party, an alibi confirmed by many in attendance.

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Welcome to Trump's Corrupt State - the Star Wars Cantina of World Politics Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 June 2019 08:28

Reich writes: "Trump has been ramping up his 'Deep State' rhetoric again. He's back to blaming a cabal of bureaucrats, FBI and CIA agents, Democrats and "enemies of the people" in the mainstream media for conspiring to remove him from office, in order to allow the denizens of foreign 'shitholes' to overrun America."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Welcome to Trump's Corrupt State - the Star Wars Cantina of World Politics

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

16 June 19


The administration and the Republican party are nests of lobbyists and con artists who make Greedo look like a saint

rump has been ramping up his “Deep State” rhetoric again. He’s back to blaming a cabal of bureaucrats, FBI and CIA agents, Democrats and “enemies of the people” in the mainstream media for conspiring to remove him from office, in order to allow the denizens of foreign “shitholes” to overrun America.

But with each passing day it’s becoming clearer that the real threat to America isn’t Trump’s Deep State. It’s Trump’s own Corrupt State.

Not since the sordid administration of Warren G Harding have as many grifters, crooks and cronies occupied high positions in Washington.

Trump has installed a Star Wars cantina of former lobbyists and con artists, including several whose exploits have already forced them to resign, such as Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price and Michael Flynn. Many others remain.

When he was in Congress, the current White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, pocketed tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from payday lenders, then proposed loosening regulations on them. Mulvaney was also acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, of all things.

When he was Trump’s special adviser on regulatory reform, the Wall Street billionaire Carl Icahn sought to gut the Environmental Protection Agency rule on ethanol credits, which was harming his oil refinery investments.

This week the Guardian reported that a real estate company partly owned by Trump son-in-law and foreign policy adviser Jared Kushner has raked in $90m from foreign investors since Kushner entered the White House, through a secret vehicle run by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands. Kushner’s stake is some $50m.

All this takes conflict of interest to a new level of shamelessness.

What are Republicans doing about it? Participating in it.

The secretary of transportation, Elaine Chao, who also happens to be the wife of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has approved $78m in grants for her husband’s home state, Kentucky, including a highway improvement project twice rejected in the past. Chao has even appointed a special liaison to coordinate grants with McConnell’s office. Did I say McConnell is up for re-election next year?

Under normal circumstances, news that a cabinet secretary is streamlining federal funding for her husband’s pet projects would be a giant scandal. But in the age of Trump, ethics have gone out the window.

Since he was elected in November, congressman Greg Pence, who just happens to be the brother of Vice-President Mike Pence, has spent more than $7,600 of campaign funds on lodging at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Federal election law forbids politicians from using campaigns dollars to cover housing costs.

The Corrupt State starts with Trump himself, giving new meaning to the old adage about a fish rotting from the head down.

When foreign governments aren’t currying favor with Trump by staying at his hotel, they’re using state-owned companies to finance projects that will line his pockets, like China’s $500m for an entertainment complex in Indonesia that includes a Trump-branded hotel.

Trump claims the Deep State allows foreigners to take advantage of America. The reality is Trump’s Corrupt State allows Vladimir Putin and his goon squad to continue undermining American democracy.

“I’d take it” if Russia again offered campaign help, Trump crowed this week, adding that he would not necessarily tell the FBI. Just days before, Trump acknowledged “Russia helping” him “get elected” the first time.

Despite evidence that Russia is hacking and trolling its way toward the 2020 election, Republican defenders of Trump’s Corrupt State won’t lift a finger.

McConnell refuses to consider any legislation on election security. He and Senate Republicans even killed a bill requiring campaigns to report offers of foreign assistance to federal authorities.

The charitable interpretation is McConnell and his ilk don’t want to offend Trump by doing anything that might appear to question the legitimacy of his 2016 win. The less charitable view is Republicans oppose more secure elections because they’d be less likely to win them.

Trump and his Republican enablers are magicians who distract us by shouting “look here!” at the paranoid fantasy of a Deep State, while creating a Corrupt State under our noses.

But it’s not a party trick. It’s the dirtiest trick of our time, enabled by the most corrupt party in living memory.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Lula Is Innocent. Free Him Now. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50989"><span class="small">Tony Burke, Jacobin</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 June 2019 08:21

Burke writes: "The revelations uncovered about the case against former Brazilian president Lula da Silva, jailed in April last year, vindicate a year of campaigning for his freedom."

Former Brazilian president Lula da Silva gives a speech to supporters on March 18, 2016, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photo: Victor Moriyama/Getty Images)
Former Brazilian president Lula da Silva gives a speech to supporters on March 18, 2016, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photo: Victor Moriyama/Getty Images)


Lula Is Innocent. Free Him Now.

By Tony Burke, Jacobin

16 June 19


The evidence is now overwhelming — Lula was the victim of a politically motivated campaign to keep him from returning to power. He must be freed.

he revelations uncovered about the case against former Brazilian president Lula da Silva, jailed in April last year, vindicate a year of campaigning for his freedom. But this isn’t just about Lula, the consequences of this miscarriage of justice are huge.

This last week the Intercept published a range of documents that show Lula’s conviction was politically motivated and aimed at stopping him running in the 2018 presidential election. With front-runner Lula out of the race (he was polling over double of his election rivals at the time of his arrest) far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro went on to win the election. Lula’s prosecuting Judge Sergio Moro was then appointed Minister of Justice.

Lula was convicted for “indeterminate acts of corruption” and accused of receiving an apartment in the form of a bribe. The investigation was part of a sweeping corruption probe called the “Car Wash” (Lava Jato) Operation that caused a huge political uproar in Brazil. It claimed to be neutral, and its star Judge Sergio Moro claimed to be above politics.

The investigation was even hailed by the national and international media, and Moro was named in the Time 100 list.

At the time of Lula’s arrest, numerous campaigners argued that the investigation against him was an abuse of the judicial system — illegal wiretaps on his family and legal team, lack of material evidence, and evidence of his innocence systematically ignored. The argument against his trial’s fairness is now indisputable.

The released documents show that Judge Moro acted with blatant disregard for the principles of neutrality. While claiming to be impartial, Moro was secretly collaborating with the prosecution to design the very case he was supposed to be ruling over.

Moro was communicating with, and directing, leading prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, whose case he was later supposed to judge. The explosive files even show that the prosecution themselves didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict Lula — but they pushed ahead anyway. And why not? They knew that the overseeing judge wanted to convict him.

You don’t need a legal background to recognize this abuse of the justice system for political ends. As the Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald said, this is “a complete and undeniable violation of every ethical rule that governs what a judge can do.”

Not only were the investigators attempting to discredit Lula, these documents show that they wanted to destroy the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT) and the huge progressive gains they made in poverty reduction, social mobility, and other areas, ensuring that the right wing returned to political dominance in the process. The files show the prosecuting team directly intervening in politics by working to stop Lula giving interviews from prison in case it helped the chances of Fernando Haddad, Lula’s replacement candidate, in the election.

The ramifications of this now-disgraced investigation have been enormous. Bolsonaro and the far right rode to power on the back of Lula’s removal from the political process and the anti-PT sentiment fostered by Judge Moro. With Bolsonaro’s rise to power has come an agenda of privatization, slashing budgets and dismantling the education system, attacking trade unions, social welfare, and environmental protections, and threatening Brazil’s LGBT and indigenous populations.

Brazil now has a president who doesn’t believe in climate change (his ministers believe that it’s a “Marxist plot”), who wants to row back all progress made in protecting the Amazon rainforest and who supports Donald Trump’s political interventions on the world stage.

With their praise for Judge Moro and his actions, respected institutions across the globe facilitated this situation by paving the way for Bolsonaro’s rise to power.

This case hasn’t just affected Lula’s freedom or the democratic right of two hundred million Brazilians, the example he sets for aspiring far-right authoritarians, wherever they may be, impacts all of us.

The only response from Brazil’s right has been outright denial and personal attacks on the journalists involved. In a climate where progressive councilwoman and human rights campaigner Marielle Franco was politically assassinated last year, we need to take this fight seriously.

These revelations could be a “Watergate” moment for Brazil. We must insist they are not ignored and continue to push for Lula’s freedom.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 Next > End >>

Page 858 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