When I'm driving around I see a lot of people screwing around with their cell phones not even thinking about what might happen. Well wake up folks driving requires you to pay attention. This video is fairly long and a little graphic but I think it illustrates my point pretty well

#Commentary

First and foremost let me say I haven't validated the claims made in this video - so while it appears to be an honest video it could be a complete prank. It doesn't seem like it is though. Quite frankly I find this shocking and disgusting. I don't eat McDonalds food anyway but I seriously doubt there is much difference between their burgers and fries versus Wendy's, Burger King's, or any other chain. What the hell are we eating?

#Commentary

Do you remember when people were angry that we are at war? You know, 10 months ago when protesters were out in front of the US Capital and the presidents house yelling and demanding that we bring the boys back home; that we end this war? It seemed you couldn't turn on the news or open a newspaper without seeing something about a large group out and angry about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (though the Afghan war has never drawn quite the ire the Iraq war did).

A funny thing has happened in these past 10 months. The wars didn't end but the protests did. Odd isn't it? All of the complaints about the wars are still valid and the expense of them in terms of money and lives just keeps going up yet the protesters have fallen silent. Maybe they're still out there but I'm not the only person who seems to think they are missing.

Perhaps they all think President Obama is taking care of the problem. Maybe it's the fact that there is a set date for withdrawal in Iraq now so people are sort of appeased. Maybe they think that since the news talks primarily about Afghanistan now that our force levels in Iraq are almost down to nil and we don't have to worry about that one anymore. Or maybe they didn't care that we were at war all that much but just hated the way the war was sold to us. Maybe the protesters were protesting President Bush and the war was just a good subject to latch onto. Or maybe the protests are still going on but the media isn't covering it?

Have you seen any anti-war protests since Obama was elected or is everyone so busy arguing about Healthcare that they've forgotten that we are at war?

#Commentary

Before you pick any one group out to label "Facist" - which is becoming common place in today's divisive political climate - check this list and see if the term really fits:

Taken from: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer

1. 
   
2. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
   From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
   
3. Disdain for the importance of human rights
   The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
   
4. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
   The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
   
5. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
   Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
   
6. Rampant sexism
   Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
   
7. A controlled mass media
   Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
   
8. Obsession with national security
   Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
   
9. Religion and ruling elite tied together
   Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
   
10. Power of corporations protected
    Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
    
11. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
    Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
    
12. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
    Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
    
13. Obsession with crime and punishment
    Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
    
14. Rampant cronyism and corruption
    Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
    
15. Fraudulent Elections
    Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

#Commentary

Tonight was the final chance the school board of cabell county had to name the replacement for Dr. Borowski. While my name was technically still in the hat I think only a fool would have thought I was still in consideration after last week. However, I still wanted to see what happened and I wanted to see the resolution so I suited up and headed to the board meeting tonight.

The first fifty minutes or so were held in executive session where the board discussed some property issues then they emerged to make their big decision for the night - who would get the fifth seat?

Barr and Holly both made it obvious last week that they really wanted Duncan even if they never nominated him or said a word in his favor. Furthermore, Barr, in a newspaper article, made it sound like tonights events would resume exactly where they left off (an impasse on Duncan).

I was prepared for the worst going in but hopeful for something better and Mrs. Oxley carried a torch of hope as well. She proposed that each board member put forth their top 3 candidates, then the board could discuss positives and minuses. Mrs. Holley didn't like the sound of that because she was afraid she would offend someone while talking about their negatives. Eventually Superintendant Smith suggested they each put forth their top two and then only discuss positives. The board agreed to proceed with that plan.

Mrs Oxley nominated Steve Thomas and Carla Parker. Mr. Thomas nominated Mary Neely and Carla Parker. Mr. Barr nominated Rick Duncan and Mary Neely. Mrs. Holley nominated Rick Duncan and Nancy Newfeld. Then each board member went around in turn and explained what they liked about their two people. All four made a great case for their two candidates so it seemed only a matter of time before they would reach consensus on one of them.

Sadly a consensus was not in the plans; at least not an official one. Eventually, after listening to Mr Barr ramble a bit and talk about Horse races and call me out specifically in reference to them, Mrs. Oxley suggested that because there were three candidates left with two supporters each (Duncan, Neely, and Parker) that the four board members should name their top two of those three.

Mrs. Holley named Duncan and Neely. Barr named Duncan and Neely. Thomas named Neely and Parker. Finally Oxley named Parker and Neely. All four were suddenly agreeing that they thought Mrs Neely would be a good choice! A final decision seemed eminent but it was not to be. No, Holley lamented that they had reached an impasse again and Barr started to ramble again. Fortunately, Mrs Oxley stepped up again and suggested they compromise on the one candidate that all four agreed on. The audience grumbled their support of that idea. Even Mrs. Holley seemed to agree with the idea so she proposed an odd solution; vote out Duncan and Parker and then they would all, obviously agree on Neely.

Oxley nominated Parker (seconded by Thomas) and she was voted down 2-2. Then for some reason Thomas nominated Neely and there was a mass of confusion on the stage so they started over. Again, Parker was nominated by Oxley (seconded by Thomas) and shot down 2-2. Then Holley nominated Duncan and it all we needed was for Barr to accept defeat and nominate Duncan. He wouldn't and no vote occurred. Mrs Holley then complained that the other two wouldn't nominate Duncan - it was as if she couldn't just give Mr. Barr a piece of her mind.

Eventually Mrs. Neely was nominated by Thomas and seconded by Oxley. She was voted down 2-2! What the heck? Why didn't Holley vote for Neely since that was what she was trying to setup anyway by getting Duncan voted out? The impasse was breakable but instead it was just fortified. I was dismayed at Barr for refusing to give up on Duncan and I was saddened by Holley for not just being the champion and voting for Neely.

Mrs. Holley then complained about how she thought it sucked that Duncan wouldn't be voted on and I suggested she look at her partner sine Duncan was his man. At this point both Holley and Barr took offense to my interruption and seemed to suggest I leave so I stood, walked to the front of the room, thanked Holley for at least trying, and then told Mr. Barr that he is a disgrace.

The board had a good opportunity to pick a candidate and show that they can come to a consensus. They had made it easy for themselves by all agreeing with Mrs. Neely in their final two - yet, sadly, Barr just could do it. He could't step up and accept the situation and instead he stubbornly dug in his heels.

I tried to get on the board because I thought I could help but at this point I'm glad I wasn't chosen. I do not think I would enjoy working with Mr Barr and I do not feel he has the County's best interest at heart; instead he seems more concerned with his pride. It was a sad day for Cabell County.

#Commentary #MyLife

Tonight was the night.  The night where the Cabell County Board of Education was scheduled to select the candidate to fill the vacant position left after Dr. Borowski resigned last month.  There were eight candidates to choose from, myself included, and four board members who had to reach a consensus.

The board currently consists of Mr. Barr (president), Mrs. Oxley, Mr. Thomas, and Mrs. Holley  who is basically just a puppet of Mr. Barr.  As you can see by this balance Mr. Barr, with two votes, entered the night with a significant advantage in placing his candidate of choice while Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Oxley were, in reality, left wasting their time considering the eligible candidates.

The board meeting was fairly long but nothing unreasonable and the selection process was scheduled as the last item on the agenda.  The process began at aproximately 10:15pm.   The procedure outlined by Mr. Barr was that a board member had to nominate a candidate then, if he or she had a second, the board would vote.  If the candidate didn't get three votes he or she would be elminated from consideration.

Mr. Barr and his puppet refused to nominate anyone leaving Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Oxley to put their necks out for candidates only to have them rapid fire shot down by Mr. Barr and Mrs. Holley.  It was a, for all intents and purposes, a waste of everyones time.

Suprisingly, I was one of the final two candidates left and neither Mr. Thomas nor Mrs Oxley seemed keen on putting out my name only to see it shot down. However, eventually, Mr. Thomas succumed to the dead silence of the board and nominated me.  Mrs. Oxley seconded and the vote occured resulting in a draw at  2-2; I was eliminated.

Only one candidate remained, Mr. Rick Duncan - Mr. Barr's preferred candidate (though he refused to ever say who his candidate was, only that he had one).  Yet neither Mr. Barr nor his puppet would nominate him.  Mr. Barr had backed himself into a corner because, if his candidate were to be eliminated he would be removed from all consideration.  Thus, if Mr. Barr were to nominate him he ran the risk of Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Oxley voting against him.   Thus, Mr. Barr hoped that one of those two would put forth the final nomination in order to bring about closure.   Mr. Barr obviously thought that the nominator would thus feel forced to also vote for the candidate and hence he would get the 3 vote majority.

It was a mockery of a process.  We reached the point where there was just one candidate left at about 10:50 yet the meeting didn't adjourn, with no decision made, until after 11:30.  Mr. Barr just sat there hoping one of the other two would fall for his gambit.  Mr. Barr also arrogantly dismissed every comment made by the watching public and refused comment whenever he didn't like a question.

Eventually, I had had enough.  Mr. Barr insisted the process was similar to a race and that in all races there had to be winners and losers; yet at this point there was only one horse left in the race and Mr. Barr wouldn't even enter him into it.  I asked Mr. Barr for clarification on what he thought was the minimum number of contestants required to run a race; he said he didn't know.  The president of the school board claimed he didn't know what constituted a race.  I was disappointed to learn this man is in charge of our county's educational policies.

A citizen who had sent in emails on behalf of another candidate asked Mr. Barr why he hadn't responded to her email and he claimed he didn't know how to use email.  Yet, later in the meeting he told me he would send me an email once he knew what a race was.  So either he lied to the citizen earlier about not knowing how to use email or he just wasn't bothered with responding to her.  I would bet the later.

It was obvious, very early on, that some candidates were just going to be dismissed without consideration.  Sadly, Mrs. Newfeld, a very qualified candidate, was one of them simply becuase the local newspaper endorsed her.    Mrs. Holley expressed to the crowd how she felt someone with a background as a teacher would be a great addition to the board but when the only candidate with a teaching background was voted on Mrs. Holley and Mr. Barr both immediately rejected her.  Most telling of all, to me, was that Mr. Barr didn't even know my name and seemed surprised to hear it nominated.  He needed to have it repeated to him and then he still mispronounced it as if it were the first time he had encountered it.  I clearly never stood a chance.

Mr. Barr is a poor servant of the public.  He did not do his due dilligence in picking a board member and he did all in his power to stonewall the process. As an example one of the requirements all interested candidates had to fullfil was to complete a questionaire.  One of those questions was how would we deal with the public disagreeing with our decisions.  Later, at the public interview in front of the board and all citizens interested in attending each board member was provided with the chance to ask us each one question.  Mr. Barr's question was how we would deal with the public disagreeing with our decisions.  Mr. Barr couldn't even be bothered to ask a new question - which tells me he probably didn't even read our questionaires in the first place.

Instead Mr. Barr clearly gave lip service to the idea that he felt all the candidates were good because he had no idea.  He didn't even know who we were.  Instead he knew who one candidate was and, when all was said and done, he was too cowardly to nominate him for the position.

Now Mr. Barr will continue to play politics for the remainder of the process.  He has already presented the spectre that if the board couldn't pick a member that the state would appoint someone.  Now that I have witnessed how Mr. Barr operates the board I sincerely hope the state does appoint someone.

I do not regret having attempted to join the school board but I do regret that the school board is in the hands of Mr. Barr.  Supposedly we will get an email from Mr. Barr telling us what will happen next.  I am not sure why seven us will get that email considering Mr. Barr's insistence that we were eliminated from consideration (nor do I know how a man who doesn't know how to use email will manage the task of sending out a electronic note to eight people).  I am certain that my disgust for Mr. Barr's antics were plainly evident tonight and thus any chance of my getting on the board have been quashed.  Hopefully the restriction against those who were already eliminated is removed and either Mrs. Newfeld or Ms. Carla Parker is selected for the seat.   I think the other four candidates would be fine additions as well but, if I were on the board and having to choose, Mrs. Newfeld and Ms. Parker would be my top two choices.

Tonights charade was very disheartening to me.  I have been pouring a lot of energy into projects aimed at helping improve the city and surrounding area and to see such a cancer sitting on the school board - the institution responsible for preparing our children for a global economy - is just sickening.  One citizen stepped forward tonight and suggested Mr. Barr resign and I can't help but agree with that suggestion.  Sadly that won't happen because while the Board will be just as important without Mr. Barr, Mr. Barr won't be nearly as important without the board.

As you can see I am not cut out for politics.   I truely appreciate the obvious effort that Mrs. Oxley put into evaluating the candidates.  For all of those that she nominated she spent a great deal of time explaining why she was nominating them.  I also appreciate Mr. Thomas's effort in carefully considering the candidates and for having the courage to nominate us even though he knew Mr. Barr and Mrs. Holley were playing a game.  I'm just sorry their time was wasted on our behalf.

#Commentary #MyLife

My friend Matt just blogged about how Obama had broken 10 11 promises according to the right wing rag, World Net Daily

Here are the 11 "broken" promises:

1. 
   
2. Sunlight Before Signing
   
3. Capital gains tax elimination
   
4. New American jobs tax credit
   
5. Hiatus on 401(k) penalties
   
6. No jobs for lobbyists
   
7. Earmark reform
   
8. Bring troops home in 16 months
   
9. Sign Freedom of Choice Act
   
10. $4,000 college credit
    
11. Transparency
    
12. Signing Statements

Matt also mentioned the "Porkulous Budget". The following is my response to Matt starting off with my opinion of the term "Porkulous"

Porkulous Budget

Before the last budget is called the "Porkulous" Bill I'd like to know how it compares to past budgets. I've heard plenty of people say "but it has 9000 earmarks" which of course, means nothing.

Those 9000 earmarks represent 2% of the budget. Furthermore it doesn't address how much any of those 9000 actually will provide a lasting and positive gain for not only the area getting them but also for the nation as a whole.

Sadly, we're never going to get a Federal Govt that actually wants to rescind some of its powers and return them to the states; so we need to be more honestly critical (and not just partisan) about how we evaluate things that the federal govt does. I don't "think" WDN is baised - it is biased; it's not a matter of opinion but fact. There is nothing wrong with them being biased, but it is only intellectually honest to admit they are and understand that when you read their articles.

Concerning the Broken Promises

I also agree he has no valid excuse for the "Sunlight Before Signing" broken promise. None of the bills he passed couldn't have waited 5 days.

I don't think he has "broken the promise" on removing the capital gains tax. He didn't say he would do it on the first budget.. I'd say we need to wait until his term is done to judge if this one is broken; at least he is moving in the right direction

While he only gets a short period of time for the New Jobs Credit; he didn't say it would be part of the stimulus so he still has a chance to follow through with this. Judge him by this time next year on this promise.

Exactly the same with the 401k relief. While it definitely would have made sense for that type of legislation to be in the stimulus package he didn't say that's where it would be. If it doesn't happen by the middle of this year then I'd say he failed on this one.

I'm kind of tired of the "lobbyist" one. He said he wouldn't hire folks who had lobbied in the prior 2 years I believe. He did hire 1 or 2 who lobbied in the prior 2 years so, yes, technically he broke this one. Of course, he may not have been able to fill those positions with anyone qualified otherwise. This was a stupid promise to make and, I think, impossible to be responsible and not break it. However, in his defense he has done MUCH better than any President I can remember in limiting the number of "active" lobbyists he hired.

Earmark reform; I'll give him until the next budget before I call this a broken promise. I'm not happy with this budget much but see my prior comment on the 2% thing. I can't rake him over the coals on this one (yet).

Bring troops home in 16 months - he definitely caved. However, the article is also slightly dishonest (additionally, some combat units would remain in Iraq beyond Obama's declared August 2010 withdrawal. Rather than returning home, they would simply face reassignment as "advisory training brigades.") as that can only happen if Iraq agrees to it. Obama didn't say they would remain there, only that they might if a new agreement is reached.

"The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." Ok it hasn't been his first thing; but I think he has had a few higher items on his priority list. If he doesn't do it at all then I'd consider his total promise broken, right now I think it is probably just delayed.

$4000 tax credit; again I think we need to wait until his term is done before we can say he didn't do it. He just hasn't done it yet. He probably should have included it in the stimulus package.. who knows why it wasn't there?

Transparency - well, I don't think he could have been transparent enough to not make this charge occur (and stick). He was stupid to make this promise too because there was no way it would happen. It was equally naieve of anyone to believe it.

Signing statements have also been added to the list. While I think his logic on his recent statements are valid he was a fool for using a signing statement to make his point. He should have just vetoed the damn budget and gotten things cleaned up that way. Even if his signing statement just said, "Kilroy was here" it would have been a huge mistake right after his decree against prior signing statements. (though I was happy to see the decree since it cleaned the slate). Too bad he is already muddying it up again.

#Commentary

Well, technically these insights aren't exactly new, they were presented in 2007, but they are new to me. This swedish guy, Hans Rosling, is a statistician (sounds boring doesn't it? well it isn't) who has spent a large chunk of his life directly working with the people in Africa. Then back in 2006 he was invited to TED - which is an amazing conference where people come and present all sorts of amazing stuff from all sorts of different disciplines. Anyway, Hans showed up and in his own quirky way he was a hit. He has a fantastic and engaging speaking style that makes the videos fly right by. His presentations, while never getting too technical, are great eye-openers.

He sums up the way the world is changing pretty well when he challenges the common wisdom that says Sub-Saharan Africa is failing by saying he thinks they have made the greatest change in the past 100 years - you just have to compare where they are now to where they where. That might sound crazy now but, after you watch the videos, you might be inclined to agree with him.

There are two videos here. The first is his 2006 presentation which is really cool and is followed up by an even better 2007 speech. Check them out; you won't be sorry.

If this isn't exciting enough for you he caps it all off with a sword swallowing demonstration!

#Commentary

While it is true that it is getting more expensive and ever more difficult to find a place to do so adults in the US can legally smoke tobacco but they can't do the same for marijuana. I've never really known why the distinction between the two exists thus I don't understand why "pot" is illegal. I don't smoke it (nor do I smoke tobacco) because I don't really want to destroy my lungs. However, for those who choose to smoke either why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I don't really know what kind of legal implications this would have - though it seems like legalizing pot would reduce the number of criminals by the number of people who are only involved in marijuana crimes. Likewise it would free up police resources to go after other crimes and would probably free up some prison space by letting out those who had been convicted of marijuana crimes.

We could also tax it just like we do tobacco and instantly increase our state and federal revenues. From a public policy perspective this seems like nothing but a win.

So why shouldn't we legalize pot? When it was legal was it having a substantially negative impact on our society? I found some old quotes that seem to suggest otherwise, but obviously, they are looking through a narrow lens. I'd love to hear from those who oppose the legalization to hear why it should remain prohibited.

#Commentary

Did you know I'm a registered Republican? That's right I'm a Republican. The problem is I'm don't feel particularly represented by my party any more. The party used to appeal to me but in very few ways anymore do they actually align with my political views. I don't want to bore you with a long diatribe about how I feel like the party has lost it's direction and is just a quagmire of stupidity now; I'll just give you one good example of the absurdity:

Joe the Plumber is going to advise "young conservatives" ant the Conservative Political Action Conference - a pretty big Republican get together. Joe the Plumber! It's bad enough the guy has this moniker when he isn't even a plumber but somehow, this tax evading clown is now a political science expert who should be advising the future of the party?

This joke of a man is now somehow the face of the Republican Party? I'm sorry but I can't really accept that this guy is supposed to represent me. Hell, his name isn't even Joe, it's Samuel. Nothing about his story is real. All I can conclude from the parties increased attachment to this guy is that they feel he is an accurate representation of the parties values and that it is beyond time that I resign from a party that has gone mad.

UPDATE

Here is some video footage of this tool at the conference (CPAC):


He's all for the 1st Amendment so long as you are saying something he agrees with. Seriously? I'm pretty sure that is exactly opposite of what the 1st Amendment is all about.

#Commentary