↧
How The 51st State Is Viewed In Greater Arabee
↧
Episcopal Priests Traveling With Their Interracial Family Confront The United Snakes Of Barbaria
"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"
"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"
Compendium Of Pax Posts: What's Wrong With Race Relations?
Hatred, Cops And The Law
http://paxonbothhouses.
Compendium Of Best Pax Posts On Miscarriage Of Justice And Misplaced Punishment
http://paxonbothhouses.Compendium Of Best Pax Posts: Plutocracy, Economic Inequality & Collapse Of Conservatism
Compendium Of Best Pax Posts:
What's Wrong With American Conservatism?
http://paxonbothhouses.
Compendium Of Best Pax Posts On "Too Pure Principles" And The Collapse Of Conservatism
Episcopal priests on road trip with interracial family shares harrowing story of police harassment
Aug 03, 2015 by
The Rev. Peter Schell is an Episcopal priest and the lead pastor of Calvary Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. His wife, Rondesia, is also an ordained Episcopal priest. On a road trip from Washington to Florida, Peter a white man, and Rondesia, a black woman, were traveling with their interracial family and had their first family experience of what truly appears to be racist police harassment. In the car with the couple was their 2-year old son, and Rondesia's brother. Peter shared his story on Facebook and gave us permission to repost it here.You may immediately notice that he was also pulled over for something similar to what Sandra Bland was pulled over for—a failure to use a turn signal when getting out of the way of the police car.
While driving on the first leg of our road trip to Florida, with my wife, my son and my brother-in-law, I noticed a white dodge charger in my rear view, tailgating me. After a couple minutes, I moved into the left lane to let him pass. He followed me. Then he turned on the flashing lights of the, now revealed undercover car. I pulled to the shoulder.I've been stopped by police before (always for traffic violations that were my fault.) However, several things immediately seemed unusual about this stop.
One. Two officers emerged from their car, and approached ours from the passenger side, where my brother was sitting. The lead officer knocked at his window, and asked first for his license, not mine.
Two. After checking my license as well, and the registration of our rental car, and after the officer informed me he was only giving me a warning for changing lanes without signalling (He was correct,) he asked me to step out of the car. While his partner stood by our car, he walked me back to their patrol car, and asked me what I had in my pockets (keys, a wallet, and my phone.)
Three. He asked me to take a seat in their car, and closed the door behind me. He took his seat on the driver's side, turned and began to ask me questions:
"How do you know the other people in that car?"
"They're my family: my wife, son, and brother in law."
"Where are you going?"
"To Florida on vacation. We might stop in Augusta, Georgia, to visit my wife's father."
"Where does he live in Augusta?
"Honestly, I couldn't tell you."
"Where did you come from?"
"Washington."
"What time did you leave out?"
"Around eleven, I think."
"Why did it take you so long?"
"There was traffic all the way from Quantico to Norfolk."
"Where did you rent the car?"
"In Maryland."
"From which rental company?"
"I don't know, my brother rented it."
"Are you driving straight through to Florida?"
"No, we're stopping in Fayetteville for the night."
"Why?"
"My son is two. He needs a break."
"Is your license valid?"
"Yes."
"If I checked your vehicle, would I find anything illegal?"
"No."
"No marijuana, or cocaine?"
"No."
Four. As I answered, I noticed his partner was leaning in the rear passenger side window, where my son was sitting. His hand was on his belt.
Five. After asking me these questions, he left the car, and went to talk with my family. I checked the door handle, to see if I could open it from the inside and get out, in case... of something. In retrospect, this could have been a mistake. Thankfully nothing happened. It wouldn't open, anyway.
Six. After talking with Ron and Rondesia, he conferred with his partner for several minutes. The gestured vaguely to me, and to our car.
Seven. He came back to the car. He wanted to talk again.
"Well, I'm confused. I talked to your "wife" and her story doesn't match yours."
I could hear the quotation marks in his voice.
"She just said you were going to Florida. She didn't mention her dad, or Georgia."
"We haven't decided if we're stopping on the way down, or the way back."
"She also said she was visiting her cousins in Fayetteville. You said you were just going to stop for the night."
"We are just stopping for the night. She has family there, so we're having dinner with them."
He paused.
"You seem nervous. Why are you nervous?"
"I'm nervous because you separated me from my family. I'm nervous because your partner is hovering over them. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there have been a lot of high profile incidents of police killing black people in the last few months. And you partner has his hand resting on his belt, near his pistol. So yes, I'm nervous."
That's what I thought. That's what I wanted to say. But the angels of discretion (or perhaps those of cowardice) kept me quiet.
"No, I'm not nervous."
"Hm."
He checked our information on the computer for several minutes in silence. Then he called in the details to double check. Finally, he said I could go, and reminded me to signal when I change lanes.
"Thank you officer."
I walked back to the car, and waited for the police car to pull away. We compared details, analyzed, and then drove in silence until we arrived at the hotel.
We unloaded the car. I held my son. Rondesia and I hugged.
"I love you."
"I love you too."
"I was so scared for you."
"I was scared for you."
I don't remember who said which words. But my wife spoke last.
"Well" she said, "welcome to the club."
And then I realized. None of these things were unusual. Not even a little bit.
↧
↧
Idaho Ban On Undercover Filming Of Farm Abuses Called Unconstitutional By Federal Judge
(You can own your own farm animal abuse photos.)
If slaughterhouses were made of glass, everyone would be vegetarian.
Idaho ban on undercover filming of farm abuses called unconstitutional by federal judge
Aug 04, 2015 by
Republican lawmakers trying to stop animal and agricultural abuse whistleblowers from filming those abuses, took a big hit today as a federal judge struck down Idaho's ban on surreptitious filming of agricultural abuses.
U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho swept away the state's ban on the grounds that the law violated the 1st Amendment and selectively targeted activists or journalists who might be critical of factory farm practices."The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment," Winmill wrote in a summary judgment.Ag-gag laws have become all the rage for conservative lawmakers and big business interests, none of whom like having to answer for their terrible, usually illegal and immoral, business practices and lack of quality control. The bill that Judge B. Lynn Winmill struck down had been signed into law this past February—by a Governor named "Butch":
Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill threatening people who secretly film animal abuse at Idaho's agricultural facilities with jail and fines.Luckily, the Federal court saw through this load of manure. The best part of this decision is that it is the first legal push back on this issue.Otter inked the new law Friday, two days after it cleared its final hurdle in the House.Otter, a rancher, said the measure promoted by the dairy industry "is about agriculture producers being secure in their property and their livelihood."(Alan: I doubt conservatives would apply this logic to undercover photography of Planned Parenthood staff.)
The ruling is the first in the country to deem an anti-dairy spying law unconstitutional, said Mathew Liebman of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the lead attorneys on the Idaho case.The only other similar lawsuit is in Utah, but more are likely to come after Monday's decision, he said. Currently, eight other states have passed some sort of law against such surreptitious filming, even though many more have been introduced in state legislatures.For more on this story and discussion go over to GayIthacan's diary here.
↧
NC County Commissioner Storms Out Of Meeting During Muslim Prayer
Lincoln County Commissioner Carrol Mitchem
Alan: If Christians -- especially "white privilege" Christians -- can't lord it over everyone else, they take their ball and go home.
Here's how an analogous case played out in the Supreme Court. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_696
NC county commissioner storms out of meeting during Muslim prayer: ‘I don’t need no Arab telling me what to do’
The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners had always opened government meetings with Christian prayer. About two months ago, officials decided that in order to avoid legal trouble, they’d have to let everyone participate.
That didn’t last long.
On Monday, commission chairman Carrol Mitchem, who had previously announced he wouldn’t “bow to minorities” and that he “ain’t gonna have no new religion or pray to Allah” at board meetings, held true to his word and walked out on the first person to address the North Carolina government meeting with a Muslim prayer, the Lincoln Times-News reports.
“That was very upsetting. It was upsetting,” Dustin Barto of the Foothills Interfaith Assembly, who had led the Muslim prayer, told WSCOTV.
By the end of the meeting, all prayer was banned at board meetings and will be replaced with a moment of silence. Commissioner Alex Patton initiated the motion which was easily voted into effect.
“To me, the final straw was when our chairman got up and walked out,” Patton told WSCOTV, adding that the commission needs to focus on pressing matters like the economy and education.
The issue of prayer at the meetings had generated months of controversy, the station reported.
Previously, Mitchem had vowed to keep Christian-only prayers at the meetings.
“I don’t believe we need to be bowing to the minorities,” Mitchem had told WBTV. “The U.S. and the Constitution were founded on Christianity. This is what the majority of people believe in, and it’s what I’m standing up for.”
The issue came up after nearby Rowan County was ordered by a federal judge to stop opening public meetings with sectarian prayer because it violated the Constitution.
“I don’t need no Arab or Muslim or whoever telling me what to do or us here in the county what to do about praying. If they don’t like it, stay the hell away,” Mitchem had responded. “We’re fighting Muslims every day. I’m not saying they’re all bad. They believe in a different God than I do. If that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. But, they don’t need to be telling us, as Christians, what we need to be doing. They don’t need to be rubbing our faces in it.”
Islam is one of the three Abrahamic religions and does, in fact, adhere to the same God as Judaism and Christianity, Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, pointed out.
“If you don’t believe the rights of the minority are equal to the rights of the majority, then you are against what America stands for,” Hough told the Charlotte Observer. “That’s why we live in a democratic republic.”
Watch a report on the controversy from WBTV here:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/nc-county-commissioner-storms-out-of-meeting-during-muslim-prayer-i-dont-need-no-arab-telling-me-what-to-do/↧
Great Ocean Road, Australia
↧
↧
Here's Lookin' At You Kid
↧
"Nemo" Is Latin For "No One"
↧
Snail, Acorn, Lady Bug
↧
Operant Conditioning... But Not Completely
↧
↧
Fox Sniffing Daffodil
↧
Killer Cops And Shoddy Psychological Testing
Baltimore police officer, Lt. Brian Rice
The GOP: Governing By Anecdote
Alan: Anyone can maintain a steady stream of anecdote.
Prudence and wisdom detect meaningful patterns within the aggregate of anecdotes.
The GOP: Governing By Anecdote
http://paxonbothhouses.
Serpico: I Almost Died for Exposing Police Corruption — Cops Lack Legitimacy
"Serpico" Almost Died For Exposing Police Corruption
"After My Mugging C. 1970, The Police Pressured Me To Give False Testimony"
Americans Are 9 Times More Likely To Be Killed By A Policeman Than A Terrorist
"American Cops Fire More Bullets At 1 NYC Man Than All German Cops Fire In A Year"
1 Small Town's Cops Have Killed More People Than Combined Police Of Germany And U.K.
http://paxonbothhouses.
Why Police Don't Pull Guns In Many Countries Whereas U.S. Cops Are Trained To Kill
Compendium Of Pax Posts On Violent Criminals And Violent Police
Diane Rehm Guest Gets To The Nub Of Police Violence And How Easily It's Prevented
Albuquerque Police Officer Jokes About Shooting Jame Boyd, Kills Him 2 Hours Later
"Is The United States Still A Nation Of Law?
Bad Cops And Bad Politicians Walk"
"Is The United States Still A Nation Of Law?
Bad Cops And Bad Politicians Walk"
Bad Cops And Bad Politicians Walk"
Extrajudicial Execution By Killer Cops: Best Pax Posts
Extrajudicial Execution By Killer Cops: Best Pax Posts
Cop Arrested After Video Shows Her Shoot Unarmed Man in Back Lying Face Down in the Snow
http://paxonbothhouses.
Open Season On Unarmed American Black Men, A Compendium Of Pax Posts
http://paxonbothhouses.
Lists Of Americans Killed By Cops In 2013, 2014, 2015
http://www.killedbypolice.net/
Walter Scott’s Killing Is the Sum of Every Black Nightmare About White Cops
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/04/walter-scotts-killing-is-sum-of-every_7.html
"The Department Of Justice Should Issue Police Hiring Guidelines To Preclude Bigoted Cops"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-department-of-justice-should-issue.html
"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"
"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"
"Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"
The Beginning Of The End For Cop-Killer Privilege: "#CrimingWhileWhite"
"Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"
The Beginning Of The End For Cop-Killer Privilege: "#CrimingWhileWhite"
American Cops Fire More Bullets At One NYC Man Than All German Cops Fire In A Yearhttp://paxonbothhouses.
There's Never Been A Safer Time For Cops Nor A More Dangerous Time For Criminals
http://paxonbothhouses.
http://paxonbothhouses.
Compendium Of Pax Posts: What's Wrong With Race Relations?
Hatred, Cops And The Law
http://paxonbothhouses.
Killer Cops: Slow Motion Serial Killing By White People
Psychological firm that screened Baltimore police is under investigation
The city of Baltimore is investigating a psychological firm which was paid to evaluate troubled Baltimore police officers, including one charged in the death of Freddie Gray. Meanwhile, the Maryland State Police has put the firm on probation when they discovered it completed officer evaluations in 15 minutes instead of the 45 minutes required by the state contract, documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.
Experts say 15 minutes is far too short to adequately conduct psychological assessments, either for police applicants or officers seeking to return to active duty. Psychology Consultants Associated (PCA) screened both.
One of the officers that should have been evaluated was Lt. Brian Rice. In 2012, he was accused of removing a semi-automatic handgun from the trunk of his personal vehicle and threatening the mother of his child. Court records and sheriff’s reports raised concerns about Rice’s self-control and judgment.
Michael A. Wood, a retired Baltimore police sergeant who said he wrote the department's medical policy, said Rice "absolutely would have had a fitness for duty evaluation, and would have been referred to PCA. It would have been required."
However, the quality of the test Rice and similar officers would have gone through is now in question.
Rice is one of six Baltimore police officers facing charges in Gray's death in police custody this past April. The court charged Rice with manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Jack Leeb, a psychologist whose firm performs psychological assessments for 30 law enforcement agencies in Maryland, said screenings typically take him at least 40 minutes.
"If you have a young person with no significant issues, he's never been arrested or done drugs — those types of things — if the answers are no, no, no, no, the interview could take as little as 20 minutes," Leeb told The Associated Press. "But that's just the interview. To dictate the report, that takes between 10 and 15 minutes by itself. In a really clean case it would take 35 minutes, and that would be on the low side. But 15 minutes for the whole thing? They can't possibly be asking all the questions."
Additionally, PCA and its president, psychologist Kenneth Sachs, are already the subject of a lawsuit involving allegations of shoddy screenings.
Baltimore police officer Angeline Todman, who suffered from mental health issues, killed herself with her service weapon just five days after Sachs deemed her fit to return to active duty following two involuntary hospitalizations.
Todman had been first committed to a hospital due to drastic changes in behavior, among other health concerns. Four months later she was hospitalized a second time, and upon her release asked to be reinstated. Sachs denied her request, but ultimately found her fit for duty and authorized the return of her service weapon.
This report includes material from The Associated Press.
↧
Could Joe Biden Pick Barack Obama As His Running Mate? Yes. But.
Obama and Biden applaud at a campaign stop Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, in Springfield, Ill.
Canadian Born, Cuban Sired, Ted Cruz's Presidential Eligibilityhttp://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/ted-cruzs-presidential-eligibility.html
Ted Cruz Proves To Conservatives That They Are Twisted, Conniving People
Canadian Born, Cuban Sired, Ted Cruz's Presidential Eligibility
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/ted-cruzs-presidential-eligibility.html
Ted Cruz Proves To Conservatives That They Are Twisted, Conniving People
Alan: Although Obama was born in the United States of America, the bogus allegation that he was born in Kenya no more invalidated Barack HUSSEIN Obama's candidacy than it does Ted Cruz' candidacy who was, in fact, born in Canada.
Could Joe Biden pick Barack Obama as his running mate? Yes. But.
Philip Bump, August 6, 2015
It started, as so many things start, in the hazy college dorm room that is Twitter.
Could Joe Biden seek to goose his not-yet-existent presidential campaign by adding Barack Obama to the ticket? Or, along the same lines, could we see Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton face off against Jeb Bush-George W. Bush? And, like, can you even imagine?
The answer seems to be pretty straightforward. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." And the 22nd Amendment, the political response to Franklin Roosevelt's impressive run of presidential victories, capped presidents to two terms. Ergo: No Clinton-Clinton or Bush-Bush. Or Biden-Obama, for that matter. Done and done, rigth?
The answer seems straightforward. But it is less straightforward than it appears.
Michael Dorf is a professor of constitutional law at Cornell University. In 2000, he argued that an Al Gore-Bill Clinton ticket could withstand legal scrutiny. And when we spoke by phone on Thursday, he said that he stood by that argument.
The rough outline of his argument is this: The 22nd Amendment doesn't say you can't be president for more than two terms. It says you can't be electedpresident twice. If a Biden-Obama ticket won (which we'll get to), and tragedy were to befall Joe Biden, Barack Obama could become president, according to the letter of the law (which we'll also get to), since he wasn't elected to the position. As such, Obama is not constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.
What's more, Dorf said, the case of Powell v. McCormack in 1968 established precedent for a narrow reading of what constitutes "eligibility." In that case, the House sought to prevent Adam Clayton Powell from being sworn in as a representative, arguing that the Constitution gave them the ability to "be the judge of ... qualifications" to sit in the House. The Supreme Court disagreed, deciding that the House couldn't add new qualifications (in Powell's case, that he faced legal problems) by which to deem someone eligible.
"I interpret the Powell case to mean that when the Constitution refers to 'qualifications,' or whether someone is 'qualified' for an office, that's a kind of term of art," Dorf said. "When we learn that the vice president has to have the qualifications for the office of the presidency, that is also a term of art. We look to the part of the Constitution that tells us what it takes to be qualified to be president, and not having served two prior terms is not among them."
"The 22nd Amendment, to my mind, is a sort of stand-alone provision," he continued. And that provision says "elected.""The drafters of this language knew the difference between getting elected to an office and holding an office. They could have just said 'no person may hold the office of president more than twice.' But they didn't."
Here's the interesting part, though: Dorf also notes the distinction betweenrunning for the vice presidency and becoming vice president. I asked him where a challenge would arise to a Biden-Obama candidacy, and his response was that it would come up at the Electoral College -- or once Congress was asked to certify the already-voted-upon results. There's a completely valid argument to be made that the country would never elect Barack Obama as vice president, of course, in part because is seems to violate the spirit of the 22nd amendment. But if we did, it wouldn't actually become a constitutional question until after Election Day. Remember: We don't elect the president and vice president; the Electoral College does.
Meaning that, in theory, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden could name anyone as their running mate. Hillary Clinton could run with Charlotte Mezvinsky, her infant granddaughter. The granddaughter couldn't serve, given that she doesn't meet the Constitutional standard for the presidency (being 35 years old) -- but she can run.
That's assuming that young Ms. Mezvinsky were allowed to be on the ballot in the necessary states. State electoral processes differ and the states are allowed to decide what qualifications are required to appear on their ballots. Not being potty-trained might end up being one.
If you're curious, as I was, it's a slightly different situation if, say, George W. Bush ran for the House and was elected House speaker and then the president and vice president died -- the line of succession that puts the speaker second-in-line to the presidency. But that's a statute, meaning that it can be more easily set aside as needed. (The same would hold if the speaker of the House were less than 35 years old -- the minimum age for a president -- which is possible.)
So, in short: Yes, Joe Biden can name Barack Obama as his running mate. It's even conceivable that, if they won, they could argue their case before Congress to be seated as president and vice president. (And Hillary Clinton could name Charlotte Mezvinsky as her running mate, though Charlotte couldn't be vice president. And Jeb Bush can unquestionably name George Bush as his running mate and not even have any constitutional question arise.
Meaning George H. W. Bush, of course, who was only elected president once.
Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He is based in New York City.
↧
Scientists Just Came Up With The Craziest Way To Protect Your Kale From Pests
Scientists Just Came Up With the Craziest Way to Protect Your Kale
Check out this sickada beat.
A version of this story was originally published on Gastropod.
Farmers searching for an eco-friendly way to combat pests in their fields might someday have a surprising new weapon: speakers. It may seem crazy, but scientists hope that sound systems bumping just the right noises can prime plants to pump up the levels of their own, innate chemical protection.
That's just one of the ways that researchers are eavesdropping on the sounds of the farm in order to improve agriculture, as we report on this episode of Gastropod, a podcast about the science and history of food. From James Bond-inspired spy devices that can capture the wing-beats of hungry insects, to microphone-equipped drones patrolling henhouses in search of sick chickens, we discover that sound has the potential to help reduce pesticide use, make our vegetables even more nutritious, and even improve animal welfare.
Mozart for Plants
The idea that plants can hear and respond to music has a long and checkered history. Charles Darwin made his son, Francis, play the bassoon in front of an herbwhile he watched to see whether its leaves twitched (the plant was unmoved); Barbra Streisand caused a veritable explosion of color when singing to her tulips in the musical On a Clear Day You Can See Forever; and, as recently as the 1970s, UNC Greensboro physicist Dr. Gaylord Hageseth claimed that his experimental "pink" noise could make turnips sprout much faster.
The idea that plants can hear and respond to music has a long and checkered history. Charles Darwin made his son, Francis, play the bassoon in front of an herbwhile he watched to see whether its leaves twitched (the plant was unmoved); Barbra Streisand caused a veritable explosion of color when singing to her tulips in the musical On a Clear Day You Can See Forever; and, as recently as the 1970s, UNC Greensboro physicist Dr. Gaylord Hageseth claimed that his experimental "pink" noise could make turnips sprout much faster.
While the claims that playing Mozart in a cornfield will lead to a dramatic increase in yield have proved impossible to replicate, scientists are sure that plants do respond to sounds in their environment, with small changes in gene expression, for example, or slightly different germination rates. But, as Heidi Appel, senior research scientist at the University of Missouri, told Gastropod, "We never understood why plants would have that ability."
Pest Sounds
Intrigued, Appel teamed up with her colleague Reginald Cocroft, a behavioral ecologist, to focus on a sound that, they thought, might be particularly useful to plants: the vibrations caused by insect feeding. "These are one of the earliest and most quickly transmitted signals plants have that they're being attacked," said Appel. And while plants can't hear insects the same way we do—they don't have ears, after all—they can sense vibrations, much like club-goers feel the thump of bass or worshippers hear an organ reverberate through a church. "In that case, your body is a substrate," picking up the sound vibrations, Appel explained. "That's much more like what plants experience."
Plants that had undergone audio training responded to the caterpillar attack by producing much higher levels of mustard oil.
To test their theory, Appel and Cocroft used lasers to measure the minute leaf tremors, about 1/10,000th of an inch, that caterpillars make when they munch onArabidopsis (rockcress), a spindly relative of cabbage and broccoli that is commonly used in plant research. Next, they played those sounds back to one set of plants, and left the control group in peace. Finally, they let the caterpillars loose on both plant populations. Astonishingly, they found that the plants that had undergone audio training actually responded to the attack by producing much higher levels of mustard oil, their innate pesticide—which made them much less appetizing to the hungry caterpillars.
"That was very exciting and we were very happy," Appel said. "But, at one level, we thought, 'So what?' Plants might respond to everything." So they tested the plants again, this time using recordings of wind and treehoppers, a bug that looks like a thorn and sings with a high-pitched whine but does not like to dine on Arabidopsis. In response to these vibrations, however, the plants produced no increase in mustard oil. With this elegant experiment, Appel and Cocroft had solved a basic question of plant evolutionary biology: Plants evolved the ability to respond to sound vibrations in order to recognize and ward off attackers.
Musical Mustard
In doing so, Appel and Cocroft may have also hit upon a potent environmentally-friendly pesticide. Perhaps a field full of speakers blasting the sounds of crunching caterpillars might help terrified crops prime themselves to ward off a real attack, removing the need to apply chemical pesticides. This summer, Appel and Cocroft are testing commercially useful Arabidopsis relatives in the brassica family, such as kale and Brussels sprouts, to see if they demonstrate the same response.
But, as Appel pointed out to Gastropod, the use of sound might have an even more direct impact on our health. While plants evolved these chemical responses to deter pests, for humans, they often provide both flavor and health benefits. In fact, the sulfurous compounds produced by Arabidopsis and its fellow brassicas form the basis of America's favorite hot dog condiment, mustard. And those same chemicals areactively being studied by cancer researchers for their potent health benefits. Maybe, by playing predator sounds in the field, farmers could actually grow more healthful plants.
Appel is testing this hypothesis with an African plant that is currently harvested for medicinal use, to determine whether caterpillar feeding increases the plants' production of beneficial chemicals. If so, she can then test whether playing predator sounds has the same effect. "When we look at a plant as a source of flavor or medicine, what we are looking at is the product of millions of years of evolution of the plant interacting with its own pests—and those are largely insects," said Appel. Insects that, it turns out, plants can hear.
This is the first of a two-part series exploring the relationship between sound and food. Listen to this episode of Gastropod for much more on the experimental history and emerging science of acoustic agriculture, from the perfect bovine playlist to the lost rhythms of Southern farming. And, if you like what you hear, subscribe to make sure you don't miss out on hearing the difference between hot and cold tea, learning how the sound of tiny bubbles in soda changes its taste, and discovering the science behind pairing wine with music.
Cynthia Graber is the co-host of Gastropod and is an award-winning radio and print journalist who covers science and technology, agriculture and food, distant lands, and any other stories that catch her fancy. Her work has been featured in Fast Company, Slate, the Boston Globe, Scientific American, the BBC, and a variety of other magazines, radio shows, and podcasts.
↧
↧
Steve Jobs Was A Genius... And A Jerk
16 Examples Of Steve Jobs Being A Jerk
Steve Jobs Didn't Care If People Thought
He Was An Asshole
When Steve Jobs' ex-girlfriend asked him to pay $25 million for his "dishonorable behavior"
Among the many love-hate relationships that Steve Jobs engendered during his remarkable 56 years on earth, none endured as long—nor was as fraught—as his connection with Chrisann Brennan, Jobs’ first girlfriend and the mother of his daughter Lisa.
The pair met at age 17 in 1972, as students at Homestead High School in Cupertino, Calif., and Brennan’s stormy dealings with Jobs—over his initial denials of paternity, his treatment of Lisa, and his limited financial support—continued until his death nearly four decades later. Brennan offered her unsparing take on Jobs—and becoming an “object of his cruelty”—in a 2013 memoir, entitled The Bite in the Apple.
But one till-now-unrevealed chapter of their tortured history unfolded after the period covered by Brennan’s book, during the time when her ex- was achieving his highest renown and wealth. It’s the story of how she asked Jobs, by then a billionaire, to repent for his “dishonorable behavior” with a $25 million payment to her—and another $5 million for their daughter, then 27.
Brennan, now 60, made her request in an undated, single-spaced, two-page letter, which she says she sent to Jobs in December 2005. She later provided a copy to Fortune (click here to read Brennan’s letter). A self-described “transmutational” painter and sculptor, Brennan was struggling financially then, as she had throughout her adult life. Jobs, then 50 and the CEO of both Apple AAPL 0.22% and Pixar, was worth an estimated $3 billion.
“I have raised our daughter under circumstances that were all together too tough and tougher than they needed to be,” Brennan wrote Jobs. “Obviously it was all the more confusing and difficult because you had so much money….something is incomplete….I believe that decency and closure can be achieved through money. It is very simple.”
Jobs ignored her request, Brennan says. Months later, she began writing a memoir about their relationship.
More than three years after writing Jobs and asking for money, Brennan tried again. In 2009—sick, out of money, and living with friends—she contacted him again. This time Brennan offered to shelve the book (which she says Lisa didn’t want her to publish anyway) in exchange for a financial settlement.
“I am asking you for the last time to please set up a trust for me for my life,” Brennan wrote Jobs on Sept. 26, 2009, according to emails she provided to Fortune. “I do not want to cause conflict with you but I must do something. I have been ill for 3 years and I just do not have a choice anymore….No one is going to be impressed with either of us in this book and it will hurt Lisa who never deserved any of this. The choice is yours. Please consider providing me with $10,000 for a few months and working out a trust. You and I cannot talk because I am too ill and on a hair trigger…. Given my circumstance, I am moving as fast as I can to have the money I need to live, it is either you or the book.”
“I don’t react well to blackmail,” Jobs wrote back that day, copying Lisa, then 31. “I will have no part in any of this.”
(In an email, Lisa declined a request to comment for this story. A spokesperson for Laurene Powell Jobs, the Apple co-founder’s widow, said she would also have no comment.)
After falling in love in high school, Jobs and Brennan, kindred counterculture spirits, had an on-again, off-again romance over five years. They never married, but lived together for parts of that time. He got her pregnant at age 18—by their agreement, she had an abortion—then again, when she was 23.
Lisa was born in May 1978. Jobs, who had launched Apple and was already wealthy, would give his daughter’s name to one of Apple’s first personal computers. Yet he went to great lengths to deny paternity for more than two years, while Brennan cleaned houses, waited tables, and went on welfare. At one point, Jobs even swore in a signed court document that he couldn’t be Lisa’s father because he was “sterile and infertile,” and lacked “the physical capacity to procreate a child.” (He had three more children after marrying Powell in 1991.)
After a lawsuit forced Jobs to take a paternity test, leading to a court order to provide child support and reimburse the state for its welfare costs, Jobs began paying $500 a month. Apple went public a month later, giving Jobs a personal net worth of more than $225 million. While Jobs rarely visited his daughter for years, bought a mansion, and drove a Mercedes, Brennan struggled to make ends meet. In a published essay, Lisa, who became a writer, later recalled how her father “would stop by our house some days, a deity among us for a few tingling moments or hours.”
Brennan says later Jobs apologized for the way he’d treated her and Lisa. After developing a closer relationship with his daughter—who legally changed her name to Lisa Brennan-Jobs at age nine—he increased his support “in small increments,” eventually to $4,000 a month, says Brennan. “He was cheap as he could be. He under-provided for everything. It was always like pulling teeth to get him to step up.”
Over the years after their daughter’s birth, Jobs bought Brennan two cars and a $400,000 house, paid Lisa’s private school tuition, and at times offered other financial help. Despite this, Brennan filed for bankruptcy in 1996. During high school, Lisa lived with her father (and his family) for the first time. In a second essay, Lisa wrote: “Growing up I’d been very poor, very rich, and sometimes in the middle.”
Jobs’ money—and his favor—could be withdrawn at a moment’s notice. After a summertime conflict with Lisa, back home from Harvard, Jobs stopped supporting her and refused to pay her college tuition. Lisa moved in with a married couple down the street, who covered the tuition; Jobs didn’t repay them for years.
One e-book edition of Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography of Jobs quotes him saying that he didn’t attend his daughter’s 2000 Harvard graduation because Lisa “didn’t even invite me.” In fact, according to Brennan and two other sources, his daughter did invite him and he did attend. (According to a newspaper account at the time, Jobs used his daughter’s graduation to get excused from jury duty.)
After Brennan pointed out to Jobs that his official Apple biography described him as living in Silicon Valley “with his wife and three children”—“Lisa was so upset,” says Brennan—he changed it in July 2001 to “three of his four children.” In December 2004, it was changed back to “three children.”
In 2005, Brennan was again in financial distress. Although she and Jobs rarely spoke at that point, she wrote him, asking for an “acknowledgement gift” large enough to end her money troubles forever.
“By raising our daughter and raising her well, I have provided you with a means to having a relationship with her now,” wrote Brennan, explaining why she believed she deserved the payment. “I never turned her against you. I think you might have taken this for granted, but it should mean a great deal to you…
“I think you have made a lot of money for a lot of people over the years yet I wonder if anyone has done as much for you as I have with Lisa and done so without the full and sustained support that this work has realistically required.”
Brennan said she had arrived at the figure of “$25 million net” after years of consideration. She also requested $5 million for Lisa, and said she planned to give their daughter another $5 million out of her payment.
“It may make sense that when one goes through a traumatic experience over so many years that there is a need for truth and reconciliation for real closure to take place. This letter is the truth and money and appreciation represent reconciliation. I should have received the peaceful experiences that wealth provides so I could provide for Lisa as she was growing up….To me this balances what I have done for you.”
“I am requesting we close this chapter forever,” Brennan added. “Money is the only meaningful thing that can do it at this point. All the years that I have lost as a result of a sort of theft from dishonorable behavior can heal and be forgiven.”
Brennan says Jobs never responded to her letter.
Her 2009 payment request, however—offered as an alternative to publishing her memoir—brought his immediate, angry response.
“I am not trying to black mail you,” Brennan replied. “Please try to see that I would prefer to resolve things and that I have asked you, maybe poorly, to help before. I have been without a home for over a year and I [am] ill and I am fried. It would be convenient for me to die but even this does not happen. I am stuck with a body and a life, I need to do something.”
Lisa’s own relationship with Jobs remained volatile into adulthood, leading to long periods where they didn’t speak to one another. But Lisa was at her father’s bedside when Jobs died at home in Palo Alto, on October 5, 2011, at 56.
Brennan’s conflict continued with his widow. Days after Jobs’ death, from pancreatic cancer, Brennan published an essay in Rolling Stone, where she recalled their early, free-spirited romance—as well as the “all-too-often despotic jerk Steve turned into as he rose to meet the world.” This, Brennan says, got her “uninvited” from a private memorial service for Jobs on the Stanford campus.
In January 2014, she wrote Laurene Powell Jobs a certified letter, urging her to do what he wouldn’t, through a generous settlement from his estate.
“Your loyalty to Steve does not mean loyalty to his hatreds,” Brennan wrote. “….I simply never deserved the years of poverty and justifications he built up against me…
“You are in a position to help me without harm to your own life situation and children…..If you can find your way to helping so that I, as Lisa’s mother, can live in dignity and peace, we don’t need to tell anyone….this could be very quietly and legally done.”
In his estate, Jobs left their daughter a multi-million-dollar inheritance, which Lisa has used to help support her, according to Brennan. But Brennan says she never received a response to her letter from Powell Jobs. She ended her plea to Steve Jobs’ widow this way: “It is awkward between us for many reasons, but I do want you to know that I deeply appreciate what you must have gone through during all the years of Steve’s illness and then his death. I know you loved him very much. In truth, so did I.”
For more, watch what Pixar President Ed Catmull had to say about Steve Jobs:
Sign up for Data Sheet, Fortune’s daily morning newsletter about the business of technology.
↧
U.S. Supreme Court: States Have No Business Trying To Make It Harder To Vote
Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Voter Fraud And Voter Suppression Posts
Supreme Court Rejects Attempt To Make Voter Registration Harder
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the right of states to set up independent, non-partisan committees to draw the district maps that determine seats in Congress. Writing the opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said allowing voters to choose how the maps are created follows “the animating principle of our Constitution that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.”
She added that “nonpartisan and bipartisan commissions generally draw their maps in a timely fashion and create districts both more competitive and more likely to survive legal challenge,” and noted that “conflict of interest is inherent when legislators dra[w] district lines that they ultimately have to run in.”
Because of that conflict of interest, a growing number of states, including Arizona and California, have set up independent map-drawing bodies to combat the scourge of self-interested gerrymandering, in which the party in control of the state legislature draws the maps to keep as many seats as possible “safe” for their lawmakers.
Pamela Goodman, President of the League of Women Voters of Florida, told ThinkProgress that the ruling gives her hope as they fight an ongoing battle against gerrymandering in the Sunshine State.
“Voters should have a voice in their elections,” she said. “What gerrymandering does is allow lawmakers to draw districts that protect their position. It’s the fox guarding the hen house. Voters are not choosing their representatives. Representatives are choosing their voters.”
Advocates are currently waiting for a ruling from the Florida Supreme Court on whether the maps drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature, which include odd-shaped, snake-like districts that wrap around disparate minority-heavy neighborhoods — making the surrounding districts majority white. Florida voters passed measures in 2010 requiring redistricting to not favor any political party or water down the influence of racial or language minority groups — a process upheld by today’s Supreme Court ruling. But Goodman says enforcement is still a problem. “Unfortunately, our lawmakers did not adhere to the mandate and we have been in litigation ever since then,” she said.
Had the high court ruled the other way, it could have allowed a third of all the congressional districts in the country to be impacted, potentially causing an entrenchment of Republican power in Congress after future elections. Now, voting rights advocates are hoping more states, especially highly gerrymandered North Carolina, adopt the non-partisan process backed by the Supreme Court.
“We’re hopeful that citizens and legislators alike in other states will push politics aside and create independent bodies to draw truly representative districts after the 2020 census,” said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport.
On Monday, the Court also handed a victory to voting rights advocates by rejecting an attempt by Kansas and Arizona to add a proof of citizenship requirement to federal voter registration forms. The forms already require voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.
Leading the charge has been Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who told ThinkProgress in February that he has found “plenty of cases” of non-citizens registering to vote in his state, “sometimes unwittingly.”
Yet recent reports of non-citizen voting have been soundly debunked, while past investigations in Florida, Arizona, Colorado and Ohio turned up only a tiny handful of cases — less than one-thousandth of a percent.
Civil rights groups like the Election Protection Network say adding a proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration would actually hurt all voters, especially “traditionally disenfranchised groups like poor, minority and elderly voters,” who may lack the proper documents. In Kobach’s own state, the policy prevented thousands of eligible citizens from casting a ballot in this past election.
Voting rights advocates are lamenting, however, that the Supreme Court’s rejection of Kobach’s crusade only impacts federal election registration, and he is still free to impose additional requirements for state and local elections.
↧
"Hillary Clinton Wants To Make Voting Easier. I Can't Wait To See Republicans Try To Poohypooh It"
Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Voter Fraud And Voter Suppression Posts
Paul Waldman
The Week
For years, Democrats have been on the defensive when it comes to voting procedures. Not anymore.
In a speech in Texas on Thursday, not only did Hillary Clinton advocate for extending early voting, but she also proposed automaticallyregistering every citizen over the age of 18 to vote. And she didn't dress her language in non-partisan terms either; she called Republican-led voter ID laws "a sweeping effort to disenfranchise and disempower people of color, poor people, and young people."
She's exactly right.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that laws requiring voters to show government-issued identification at the polls were constitutional — and particularly after the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 — Republicans have moved aggressively not just to institute voter ID, but also to restrict early voting and find other ways to make voting a little more difficult. By sheer coincidence, the burden of these laws always falls more heavily on the kind of people who are more likely to vote for Democrats, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people. And now Hillary Clinton is proposing to fix part of this system, with an idea that is both extremely significant and bold.
I look forward to seeing what kind of argument Republicans will offer to explain why they think this is a bad idea.
Let's cut through the baloney and be honest for a moment: Republicans don't like early voting or universal voter registration for the same reason they want voter ID laws. They know that the easier voting is, the more Democrats will turn out. Republican voters, on the other hand, are more likely to be older, wealthier, and whiter — the people for whom the kind of restrictions Republicans have sought to impose are less of a hassle. You could argue that Democrats are just as motivated by their partisan interest in taking the position they do, but that doesn't change the simple fact that Democrats want to make voting easier and Republicans want to make it harder.So what's the case against generous and convenient voting? I suppose one might argue that it costs more money, but one would think that we'd be willing to spend a little more to have a more inclusive democracy. But with both of these proposals, Republicans don't even have the fig leaf of "voter fraud" that they use to cover their vulgar motivations in advocating voter ID.
And it really is just a fig leaf. The justification Republicans offer for their enthusiastic pursuit of voter ID laws — that they are only concerned about stamping out the crisis of in-person voter impersonation that threatens the integrity of our elections — may be the most transparently disingenuous argument made in American politics today, with the possible exception of the one saying that abortion restrictions are intended to safeguard women's health and emotional well-being.
The fact is that in-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, while there are millions of Americans who could be prevented from voting by ID laws. For instance, when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was attorney general, he announced a crusade against the "epidemic" of such impersonations. In 13 years of looking, he found a grand total of two cases of impersonation. Meanwhile, nearly 800,000 Texans lacked the IDs that would allow them to vote.
But the stark truth is that Republicans have won the battle on voter ID laws. The five conservatives on the Supreme Court have embraced them, and public opinion tends to favor them; even if they're targeted at a problem that is all but non-existent, they have a certain common-sense appeal, as long as you remain unaware of how many American citizens lack photo IDs and how these laws are often tweaked to put a thumb on the scale in the Republican direction. (Most notably, Texas' law will allow a concealed carry permit or a hunting license to count as an approved ID, but won't allow a student ID issued by a state university.)
So since Republicans' sweeping victories in 2010, and particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that states with a history of discriminatory voting laws no longer need "preclearance" from the Justice Department in order to change their laws, conservative legislatures went on a tear, passing one voter suppression bill after another. While they usually had voter ID as their centerpiece, many also moved to restrict early voting.
Even if voter ID is going to be part of the landscape for the foreseeable future, Democrats should rally around universal voter registration and ample early voting periods. And incidentally, if it's fraud Republicans are so concerned about, they should at least embrace early voting: We'd be more likely to catch one of those elusive impersonators in the more leisurely voting traffic of an extended vote period, as opposed to when there's a long line of people pressuring a poorly trained volunteer on election day.
Fifteen years after the hanging-chad debacle in Florida, we still haven't found a way to make voting easy, simple, secure, and accurate. Yet somehow every other advanced democracy manages to carry their elections off without the kinds of problems we face. It isn't because it's such a daunting technical problem. It's because our voting system sucks, and there are people who have an interest in keeping it that way.
↧
Wry "Titanic" Cartoon
↧
↧
Americans Can Neither Watch Nor Hear Tonight's GOP Debate Without A Paid Subscription!?!
Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Voter Fraud And Voter Suppression Posts
Never forget:
The Republican Party is The Corporate Agenda's"Plan A."
"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
"Plutocracy Triumphant"Cartoon Compendium
↧
NPR: "Most Of Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats Until 5 Years Ago"
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Most of Donald Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats — Until 5 Years Ago
"Well, if I ever ran for office, I'd do better as a Democrat than as a Republican," Donald Trump told Playboy in 1990. "And that's not because I'd be more liberal, because I'm conservative. But the working guy would elect me. He likes me."
It turns out that even The Donald can't predict the future — after all, 25 years after that comment, he's mounting a strong early push for the Republican presidential nomination. And while he framed himself as a conservative back then, his sympathies and political views have been all over the map during the last 25 years. Only in the last few years has he seemed to find some cohesive ground in what he thinks and whom he supports.
His political donations provide an objective look at just how big this change has been: Since 1989, donations in Donald Trump's name have totaled around $1.4 million (adjusted for inflation) to national-level parties, candidates, and other committees. Around two-thirds of that has gone to Republican groups and candidates, according to an NPR analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, Trump's decisive tilt toward giving to Republicans has only come in the last few years.
(That grey bar in 1999 comes from when Trump donated $50,000 to the "Donald Trump New York Delegate Committee — a committee to which he was the sole listed donor, per CRP.)
It's true that this data might not even reflect all of his donations to super PACs, to which donations can be anonymous. But it does indicate a sharp pivot toward supporting Republicans. That's perhaps even more pronounced when you consider the share of his total giving by party. Between 2010 and 2015, 97 percent of all of his donations have gone to Republicans. Prior to that, Democrats had been the primary beneficiaries, taking more than half of Trump's donations between 1989 and 2009.
There are a couple of narratives you could draw from these numbers. One is that Trump had a conservative conversion moment of sorts and immediately changed his views (and donation patterns) accordingly.
Or, perhaps, he was simply seeking to grow (or, more accurately, buy) influence among Republicans. In 2011, campaign finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politicsconducted a similar breakdown of his donation numbers. But since then, the numbers have grown even more telling, as his donations have exploded — more than 40 percent of his nearly $1.4 million in donations have come since 2010. The breadth of those donations is huge, too — in 2014 alone, for example, Trump gave to 34 Republican politicians.
The turnaround in Trump's donation habits has come alongside a few rapid turnarounds in political views, as Politico's Timothy Noah wrote in a Monday analysis. He at various times has voiced support of single-payer health care, a 14.25 percent wealth tax, and an assault weapons ban — all positions that he has reversed. In addition, in 1999, he proclaimed Republicans "too crazy right."
Aside from those prominent flipflops, he has also held views that would likely anger many of today's orthodox conservative voters. For example, he told the Miami Heraldin 1990 that drug legalization was the way to deal with drug violence.
"We're losing badly the war on drugs," Trump told reporter Gus Carlson. "You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars."
Likewise, in that 1990 Playboy article, he demurred on the topic of abortion: "When I asked for his stand on abortion, he frowned, pouted and asked me to turn the recorder off," wrote Glenn Paskin. "He didn't really have an opinion — what the hell was mine? It was a very human moment."
And in 2004, he told CNN that he simply didn't see himself as a Republican.
"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," Trump told Wolf Blitzer at the time. "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
To be clear, people's opinions on any number of political topics can and do change over time. But being branded a "flip-flopper" can be politically toxic — just ask John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee who suffered when Republicans gave him that title. And Trump's changes of heart have been manifold and well-documented.
So why haven't voters punished Trump for this? How is the man leading in several GOP polls also among the least consistent conservatives in the race?
Part of it might be that voters are in a state of information overload — particularly on the subject of Donald Trump.
"They're getting overwhelmed with a bunch of statements about him, and if it's true or not true, they're not sure. They're just hearing a lot," said Republican strategist David Winston.
In Winston's view, the first stage of the Trump campaign came when he burst onto the scene with a volley of outrageous and provocative statements. This current part, when voters are trying to sort out just what's what, is the second stage, in his view. The third stage, he said, will come when voters figure out what's fact and fiction and synthesize their view of who Trump is as a candidate.
But for now, that's tough to do, because Trump's strategy is to spit out provocative statements, rapid-fire, whipping his supporters into a frenzy, said another GOP strategist.
"What he does is he takes page six tabloid tactics to presidential politics and not only do his opponents not know what to do with him; neither does the media," said Ford O'Connell.
O'Connell pointed to Trump's claim that veterans are being treated worse than illegal immigrants — a comparison that O'Connell said is not completely logical but manages to link together two things that infuriate some voters.
"What he does is he throws that word salad out there, and the voter goes gaga," O'Connell adds. "And before you can even break that down for the reader or the news anchor, he then moves on to something else. He's such a whirling dervish of stuff that you just don't know which way to go."
Amid that word salad that O'Connell is talking about, Trump has found time to shrug off criticisms of his past donations, defending them as a business necessity: "I am a businessman," Trump told conservative talk radio host Howie Carr recently, as reported by Buzzfeed. "And when, you know, a speaker of the House or head of the Senate or, you know, people call, you know, I generally speak. As a businessman, you wanna be friendly with everybody."
One key event coming up could help voters cut through the noise and figure out how they feel about him: the Republican debate on August 6. As a frontrunner in the polls, Trump is certain to have a spot on the stage. And facing off against nine other GOP candidates, Americans might just get a better sense not only of whether to vote for him, but who he even is.
↧
The Self-Chosen Face Of The Republican Party: Not Any Old Asshole... An Asshole's Asshole
"Moderate Republican For Trump: Only Trump Can Restore GOP Sanity... By A Landslide Loss"
Donald Trump with a lovely lady... although he doesn't see her that way.
"Plutocracy Triumphant"Cartoon Compendium
"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"
↧