Yes, There Really Were Gunshots in Buenos Aires in 1982

After Mother Jones posted a story by David Corn accusing Bill O’Reilly of lying about being in the Falklands during the war that took place there and exaggerating his experiences in Buenos Aires, O’Reilly has been defending himself by denying ever having said he was in the Falklands, and by saying that his coverage in Buenos Aires counts as being in a combat zone.

I think that if O’Reilly had admitted that he misspoke about being on the Falklands but emphasized that he did cover the violent protests in Argentina and had been in dangerous situations elsewhere, this all would have washed over. But what O’Reilly did instead was cover his lies with more lies and with straw man arguments, pretending that the Mother Jones story denied his ever seeing violence in Buenos Aires and touting video clips showing the protests.

But Mother Jones never denied the violence. In fact, the original article noted,

Dispatches on the protest filed by reporters from the New York Times, the Miami Herald, and UPI note that thousands did take to the street, setting fires, breaking store windows, and that riot police did battle with protesters who threw rocks and sticks. They say tear gas was deployed; police clubbed people with nightsticks and fired rubber bullets; reporters were assaulted by demonstrators and by police; and a photojournalist was wounded in the legs by gunfire.

But O’Reilly exaggerated the violent reaction of the government against the protesters. According to the original article

O’Reilly noted that soldiers “were just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the streets” with “real bullets.”

Mother Jones called O’Reilly on his placement in the Falklands and on his exaggerations about the Buenos Aires protests, not on the fact of O’Reilly covering violent protests at all.

Bill O’Reilly is defending himself against accusations that were not made, because he cannot defend against what Mother Jones actually reported.

Unfortunately, after the article and O’Reilly’s initial defense, some reporters made questionable comments in their efforts to discredit O’Reilly. Eric Enberg put up a long post on Facebook in which he called the riots “relatively tame”. But when CBS released the old clips, Enberg’s comments became easy fodder for O’Reilly and his supporters, such as Mediaite’s Joe Concha who suggested Engberg must have been sleeping very soundly to have missed the sirens and gunfire.

O’Reilly lied by embellishing his experiences, then told more lies as he defended himself when his earlier lies were exposed. But the only thing Right Wing audiences will hear is how there really were gunshots in Buenos Aires, as if MoJo ever denied that there were.

Deah Barakat Was Not Pro-Terrorist

Update 2015/02/16: Stop Antisemitism Now has removed their link to the Bare Naked Islam article.

Stop Antisemitism Now, a Facebook group which I like, by the Facebook definition of the word, recently posted something that I don’t like at all. It was a link to a Bare Naked Islam article accusing murder victim Deah Barakat of tweeting “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, pro-terrorist tweets”. One out of three is bad. Barakat was certainly anti-Zionist, but the other two accusations are lies.

Bare Naked Islam, a website dedicated to promoting hatred if Islam, correctly pointed out Barakat’s anti-Zionist tweets such as,

,

and

But I looked at Barakat’s twitter feed and found a few items Bare Naked Islam didn’t bother to post,

,

and

Had I met Deah Barakat, we might have argued about the legitimacy of Israel. We might not have liked each other. But he was not pro-terrorist.

For calling out the lie in a comment on Stop Antisemitism Now’s post, I was called a “Self Loathing Jew”. It’s hard for me to defend myself against such comments since I lack any Jew cred, having lost my faith and having been raising hogs in Virginia and all, but whatever my feelings about myself may be, facts are still facts. A person can be anti-Zionist and even hateful of Israel, and neither be anti-Semitic nor pro-terrorist.

Bare Naked Islam is clear about its purpose, but Stop Antisemitism Now says its purpose is to “promote pride in Israel and in Judaism”, not to promote hatred of Islam. They should promote pride without allying themselves with hate groups.

That misleading question about enforcing labor laws in Texas

I tried to watch some of the Attorney General confirmation hearings with an open mind but my mind could only stay open for about ten seconds of Ted Cruz. His petulant apology on behalf of Democratic Senator Whitehouse turned my stomach. Whitehouse had appropriately criticized so called “witnesses” who had nothing to say about Loretta Lynch and were only there to spew hate about President Obama and Eric Holder. You may have heard Whitehouse’s remark by now, “I regret that this hearing and this solemn occasion has been co-opted to that extent, and turned into what appears to be a soundbite factory for Fox News and conspiracy theorists everywhere.”, but it’s worth hearing the preceding four minutes or so where Whitehouse established that the witnesses were not there to contribute anything useful to the hearings.


(The above picture is a link to the MediaMatters page that includes the video).

Ted Cruz went further, and devoted precious time to shedding crocodile tears with True the Vote head Catherine Engelbrecht, asking her to tell us “How did it make you feel to be targeted by the government for persecution?”, and rehashing debunked accusations that President Obama was to blame for the investigations of TTV by the IRS and other federal agencies.

The time Cruz didn’t spend accusing Obama of persecuting non-partisan charitable organizations and their angelic founders was spent discussing his misleading hypothetical questions about whether or not the president can decide not to enforce labor laws in Texas, and if the president has the authority to decide not to collect taxes above 25%. The bizarre scenarios were supposed to be analogous to the president deciding not to prosecute certain undocumented immigrants. Cruz was unhappy that Lynch didn’t give him the kind of direct answer he was looking for the day before. Of course she didn’t.

The questions were not asked in search of knowledge. They were asked in the search of soundbites as Senator Whitehouse stated. The answers to those questions are clearly, “No”, but if Lynch were to respond as Cruz would have liked, her words would have been twisted into a condemnation of the president’s actions. It’s typical Republican style propaganda. Republicans are all about the “if this, then why not that?” types of questions. “If we keep guns out of the hands of criminals, than why not grab everyone’s guns?”, “If we give people healthcare, than what’s to stop the government from assigning death panels to kill our grandmothers?”, “If we tax the rich, then what’s to stop us from throwing Jews into ovens?”, “If the president decides not to prosecute illegal immigrants who aren’t causing any trouble because we barely have enough resources to catch those who are causing trouble, what’s to stop him from deciding not to enforce labor laws in Texas?”

It’s all fake. Deciding not to enforce labor laws in Texas isn’t like deciding not to prosecute illegal immigrants who aren’t causing trouble. It would be more like deciding not to prosecute anybody named Teo. Cruz’s scenaries imply the use of arbitrary criteria rather than prioritizing in accordance with established guidelines. A better labor law analogy would be: Can the president, if he barely has enough resources to close down millions of sweatshops, decide not to prosecute companies for violations of ergonomic standards?

The answer to that question would be “Yes”.

Cruz’s questions weren’t designed to learn anything about Loretta Lynch. Almost everyone, including Republicans, seems to agree that she’s well qualified for the job. Republicans just want to use these hearings as yet another forum to to attack the president, and it seems they’re willing to deny the country the appointment of a very competent attorney general unless she provides them with soundbites that would help them do so.

Take a Look at These On Line Scams

This screen popped up after I clicked on a link on Reuters. It looks like an official page from Adobe, telling me I have to install the latest version of Flash. It is not. At the bottom, there is a disclaimer telling us what it is:

We are not affiliated or partnered with Adobe […] This offering is for a download manager that will install independent 3rd party software that will update the advertised program.

Flash Scam
I do believe that if I download and run the installer, it will in fact install the latest version of Flash. I’m sure it will also install applications that deliver a steady stream of popup ads. It will probably hijack my browser and prevent me from using Google, instead delivering a bunch of paid-for results whenever I try to search for something. It might do even worse than all that.

But it looks so real. Here’s another example.

This is a page from Sourceforge, a big repository for open source projects, and it’s the Sourceforge page for Xming, a server which allows you to run Linux X applications from a remote server on a Windows desktop. It’s OK if you have no idea what that means. Xming isn’t the problem. The problem is those “Regular Download” and “Premium download” buttons on top. They have nothing to do with Xming and almost nothing to do with Sourceforge. Those are part of an ad. The real download button is the green one closer to the center of the screen. If you click one of the buttons on top, it will take you to another page where you can download another malware installer like the one disguised as the flash updater.

So why Doesn’t Sourceforge do something about these scammer ads on their website? Probably for the same reason I don’t do anything about the ads that may appear on this blog. We don’t see them. In my case, I have nothing at all to do with them. Whatever ads appear on this site are delivered by WordPress, not me. In the case of Sourceforge, they’re just renting space out to Google Ads, and Google Ads is probably working with other companies. Sourceforge has about as much to do with the scammers as your mail carrier does to the scammers who send junk mail to your door.

At any rate, they’re getting trickier out there. They’re doing a good job making their spamware and spyware installers look official, so be sure to double check what you’re clicking on before downloading anything.

Old Version of Mitigating the Damage caused by Not Voting

I made a lot of revisions to my previous post, and for the sake of honesty and to avoid looking like I’m trying to cover up any gotcha’s, here’s the version I posted on the 9th.

I see no sign of it yet, but I think a lot of Republicans are feeling some buyer’s remorse as they consider the band of comic book villains that they just put in charge of most of our nation. The puppet masters who orchestrated the debacle by spending billions of dollars on lies about the economy, the environment, Obamacare, and conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory will have to stave off the effects of such remorse. They will whisper into the ears of their newly elected henchmen and tell them that the master plan is almost complete, but now Gunslinger Jesus says we should tone it down a bit while he puts more pieces in place. If the loons can go for two years without ranting about such things as spanking the gay away or going to war with Mexico, Republican voters, who generally aren’t as deranged as the mad clowns they just elected, will approach the 2016 elections thinking, “Well that wasn’t so bad” as opposed to, “My God! What have I done?”.

If the loons can tone it down a bit and Republicans, with the help of the “Liberal Media”, can claim credit for the economy which was getting better before they regained control, then 2016 will be 2014 II. As long as there are still some Democrats around, they can keep blaming everything that goes wrong on welfare, immigration, and regulations, and keep preaching about Jesus, guns, family values, and the subversive plot to take it all away. Angry, scared, Republicans will get to the voting booths to save Christian America from Mexican Sharia terrorists and their homosexual Jewish lawyers while apathetic Democrats, those who aren’t working triple minimum wage shifts or getting turned away at the polls, will spend Election Day watching TV and posting selfies.

After a complete Republican takeover, the puppet masters won’t have to keep their henchmen in check. There will be bills in Congress against homosexuality, Islam, and Spanish. They will cut unemployment insurance as jobs get outsourced or replaced by machines. They will cut minimum wage. They’ll take credit for job growth even though job growth will mean more people working more shifts and still losing their homes. Public schools will be so ineffective that it would be better for poor and middle class to drop out and start working. We’ll see more gerrymandering, more difficulty voting, more suspicious behavior of voting machines and election officials, and more money spent drowning out the messages of political candidates who stand up for the middle class and the poor.

The chance of a poor person rising above poverty will be smaller than it had been in a century, but at least the playing field will be fair for people who’s parents spent a million dollars on their success and shouldn’t have to compete with those who’s parents didn’t spend a fraction of that amount.

The Republicans don’t have to be the party of lunacy. There’s nothing wrong with an opposing voice asking, “Don’t you think you’re spending too much on this issue?”, or “Maybe those people can’t be helped”, or “Let’s give that problem a chance to fix itself”. But that voice of intelligent dissent is gone for now. It’s been drowned out by paranoids and religious zealots who’s deranged views were just endorsed during an election that so many of us sat out. And the only people who gain from a dysfunctional government are those who hate limits on their extravagance and who don’t want meddling dogooders defending the rights of those who can’t defend them with their own money. They’re not a bunch of fat cats sitting in a room deciding how to control our future. They’re just a bunch of wealthy individuals who spend a lot of money convincing us to vote in their interests or to just stay home. And we complied.

It’s already bad and it’s going to get worse but it might eventually get better. If you doze off at the wheel as the road curves away from a 6 foot diameter oak tree, the prospects aren’t good but you still might save yourself if you wake up now. At least you might mitigate the damage and survive to make repairs.

Some say, don’t blame the non-voters, blame the non-candidates. I disagree. I say get to the polls first and eventually candidates will recognize you. Get to the polls and vote for the best choice available. They’re not going to look at you as you watch TV on election night and say, “If only I were more exciting that guy would be voting for me”. You have to at least meet them halfway. Show up and show them you’re there.

Maybe you don’t agree with either party. I don’t agree with Democrats on everything. But at the very least, don’t vote for the party that wants to make it harder for you to vote and harder for you to be informed. Don’t stay home to let confused bigots vote for you. Your inaction has just allowed voting to become much harder, but it’s not impossible yet. 2015 is an election year in many states, and it’s a chance for many of us to show politicians that we’re ready to show up. Then in 2016 we’ll have a chance to mitigate some of the damage done in 2014. But only if you vote.

Mitigating the Damage Caused by Not Voting

Some say if only we had more exciting candidates who didn’t turn away from the president then more of our voters will get to the polls. I’m hopeful, but not so confident. Republicans, with the help of the “Liberal Media” that spent most of 2014 reporting on the president’s unpopularity and hysterically ranting about fake crises and conspiracy theories, will be able to claim credit for the economy which they broke but was getting better before they regained control. With the help of the media, they can keep blaming everything that goes wrong on welfare, immigration, and regulations, and keep preaching about Jesus, guns, family values, and the subversive plot to take it all away. Then angry, scared, Republicans will get to the voting booths to save Christian America from Mexican Sharia terrorists and their homosexual Jewish lawyers while apathetic Democrats, those who aren’t working triple minimum wage shifts or getting turned away at the polls, will spend Election Day watching TV and posting selfies.

I’ve read some speculation that the clown show we’re about to be subjected to for the next couple of years will ultimately lead to a Democratic victory in 2016. I don’t have much faith in that scenario either. I see little sign of it yet, but I think even a lot of Republicans are feeling some buyer’s remorse as they consider the band of comic book villains that they just put in charge of most of our nation. They didn’t expect to win so big with such a bunch of losers. But I also think the puppet masters who orchestrated the debacle by spending billions of dollars on lies about the economy, the environment, Obamacare, and conspiracy theories will stave off the effects of such remorse. They will whisper into the ears of their newly elected henchmen and tell them that the master plan is almost complete, but now Gunslinger Jesus says we should tone it down a bit while he puts more pieces in place. If the loons can go for two years without ranting about such things as spanking the gay away or going to war with Mexico, Republican voters, who generally aren’t as deranged as the mad fools they just elected, will approach the 2016 elections thinking, “Well that wasn’t so bad” as opposed to, “My God! What have I done?”.

After a complete Republican takeover, the puppet masters won’t have to keep their henchmen in check. There will be bills in Congress against homosexuality, Islam, and Spanish. They will cut unemployment insurance as jobs get outsourced or replaced by machines. They will cut minimum wage. They’ll take credit for job growth even though job growth will mean more people working more shifts and still losing their homes. Public schools will be so ineffective that it would be better for poor and middle class kids to drop out and start working. We’ll see more gerrymandering, more difficulty voting, more suspicious behavior of voting machines and election officials, and more money spent drowning out the messages of political candidates who stand up for the middle class and the poor.

The chance of anyone rising above poverty will be smaller than it had been in a century, but at least the playing field will be fair for people who’s parents spent a million dollars on their success and shouldn’t have to compete with those who’s parents didn’t spend a fraction of that amount.

It’s already bad and it’s going to get worse but it might eventually get better. If you doze off at the wheel as the road curves away from a 6 foot diameter oak tree, the prospects aren’t good but you still might save yourself if you wake up now. At least you might mitigate the damage and survive to make repairs.

Inaction has just allowed voting to become harder, but it’s not impossible yet. 2015 is an election year in many states, and it’s a chance for many of us to show politicians that we’re ready to show up. Then in 2016 we’ll have a chance to mitigate some of the damage done in 2014.

We can recover from the damage we just inflicted on ourselves, but only if we vote.

Randy Forbes Dupes his Supporters

Recently, Randy Forbes sent an email to his wealthiest supporters, AKA his “VIP Campaign Team”, complaining about “The National Democratic Party, special interest groups, labor unions, and unregulated ‘527’ soft-money groups” who are “pulling out all the stops” to defeat conservatives.

First, let’s all have a nice laugh at a Republican complaining about unregulated campaign money. Any American who has been awake lately should know that Republicans have been pulling out all the stops when it comes to deregulating campaign contributions, because unregulated donations usually work to their advantage. According to a CBS news article, “Republicans and conservative-leaning groups are expected to narrowly outpace their counterparts on the left”, and another, reporting on the infamous “Citizens United” decision noted,

Republican candidates have enjoyed a small but statistically significant advantage in winning state legislative races since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, according a new study

But in addition to hypocrisy, Forbes is engaging in his best trick: misleading. He can decry all of that spending to defeat conservatives as he dupes his loyal supporters into sending him money, but the fact is almost none of that money has gone to his opponent, Elliott Fausz, or has been used by any 527’s to support Fausz. Elliott Fausz has been running a low-budget campaign, traveling the 4th District with his wife, Lindsay, and relying on volunteers to knock on doors, make calls, and hand out flyers. He has received very little, if any money from the National Democratic Party and no 527’s that I know of have been campaigning on his behalf. They are all afraid of being grossly outspent by Randy Forbes, and putting their efforts elsewhere.

Ellott Fausz and Lindsay Fausz with Volunteers

If Randy Forbes is nervous about finally losing an election despite his gerrymandered district and his wealthy supporters, it isn’t because he’s being outspent. It must be because voters are finally noticing that Randy Forbes won’t debate his opponents and does little for his district except promote the interests of a very small but powerful base.

I don’t know why he is misleading his donors into thinking he is a victim of big money being spent against him. My guess is he’s either planning a massive last-minute campaign blitz or he’s trying to motivate his base by making them nervous. Or maybe he just wants the money.

Randy Forbes won’t debate. Virginian-Pilot won’t endorse.

Sixteen of the eighteen paragraphs of the Virginian-Pilot’s editorial, “4th District needs better choices”, are a succinct description of why Randy Forbes has not been good for Virginia. It basically says that Randy Forbes does little other than sponsor divisive and unproductive legislation.

Forbes has instead wasted his time in Congress on inconsequential and unnecessarily divisive issues (does Congress need to inform Americans about the role of prayer?) that appeal to a narrow band of the electorate.

Which is all he needs to get re-elected.

But the editorial makes a strange turn as it seems to reach for a justification of its own title.

Elliott Fausz, a newspaperman from Chester, is almost certain to become the latest victim. The Democrat, running for the first time, is genial enough, but his inexperience shows. He has been unable to persuade Forbes to even join him for a debate.

Somehow, the fact that Randy Forbes refuses to debate is Elliott Fausz’s fault.

We do have better choices. I have participated in three campaigns for better choices than Randy Forbes, in which he refused to debate and the Virginian-Pilot failed to endorse his opponent. We had a better choice when Forbes was challenged by an Army doctor and successful entrepreneur. We had a better choice when Forbes was challenged by a teacher, school administrator, and experienced councilwoman. And we now have a better choice as Randy Forbes is being challenged by a smart, young newspaper and business man with fresh ideas. We don’t lack better choices. We lack better endorsements.

At least this time the Virginian Pilot has recognized the silliness of endorsing Randy Forbes, but it is still on the path to curing itself of whatever illness prevents it from endorsing whoever opposes him. The 4th district has about two weeks to show even more progress.

The Escalating Conflict between Israelis and Arabs

Since the latest round of violence in Gaza began, I have been studying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict more than I ever have before. By recommendation of a Facebook friend, I am reading My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel by Ari Shavit. As I read, I often stop and turn to Google and Wikipedia to get different perspectives on some of the people and events that Shavit mentions.

I am trying to keep an open mind, and if Zionism is wrong I should be willing to say so. But as I read Shavit’s book, I find reinforcement for much of what I’ve written before: The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is an escalating conflict. There is no clear right and wrong and instead there is a spiral of wrong met by greater wrong.

When the Zionists movement grew at the turn of the 20th century, many Arabs benefited greatly and many lost. In the beginning of the book, Shavit describes a Kibbutz forming at the spring of Harod, and its effect on a nearby Arab village.

First it is located by the spring, so that it will have absolute control over the valley’s water source. Weeks later, when the serfs of the Ein Jaloud hamlet give up and leave, the encampment is transplanted to the mountain slope, right next to the deserted stone houses.

Despite the ruin of Ein Jaloud, the overall effect of the new Kibbutzim was positive because the Kibbutzim drained the deadly, mosquito infested swamps and built irrigation ditches.

The villagers of Zarin are actually doing quite well as the valley booms. The friendly neighbors of Tel Fir and and those of Komay are multiplying now, as the anopheles mosquitoes are no longer here to take the lives of their young. The Bedouins, too, find the valley more attractive now.

The story of the Kibbutz in the valley of Harod is representative of the effects of Zionism on the Arab population. It was a mix of mutual benefit in some cases and Arab displacement in others.

Some Arabs responded to encroaching Zionism with murder. The riots of 1920 and again in the late 1930’s were horrible. Arabs not only burned and destroyed property, they raped, dismembered, and murdered innocent Jewish villagers. The Zionist response was more murder. Shavit:

Most Jewish murderers were members of fringe terrorist groups who defied the policy and instructions of the elected leadership of the Jewish community in Palestine. On the other hand, some of the Jewish actions were far more lethal than the Arab ones. The summer of 1938 was different from the summer of 1936 in that the number of murdered Arab victims exceeded by far the number of murdered Jews.

In the beginning, Zionists came in peace, mostly disregarding the needs of the Arab inhabitants but in many cases forging a mutually beneficial partnership. But there were also those who felt that Arabs had no place in a Jewish homeland. Arabs were also varied in their attitudes toward Zionism. But as violence escalated, more and more Jews felt they could not be safe with Arabs living among them. Arab violence helped foster support for the ethnic cleansing that they legitimately feared.

Zionism grew into a racist and nationalistic movement to expel Arabs from their lands, while extermination of Jews became the centerpiece of religious dogma throughout Arabia. Israel stands defiant against those who wish to murder all of its inhabitants, and Palestinians continue to rebel against the theft, oppression, and murder that they endure for the sake of Israel’s safety.

Meanwhile, observers on each side refuse to explore the other’s side of the story, hardening their belief that extermination of the other is the only solution to the conflict.

Book Cover for My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel

The Palestinian Riots of 1920

I posted a version of “Israel’s Original Sin” on Daily Kos as well as this blog, and on Kos I got some criticism for the title, (which I have since changed. See update below.) such as “Really bad title for a pretty thoughtful diary”, “… an odd way to put a secular political thought and could be interpreted as incendiary speech”, and “I agree such a title might lead to people mistaking the intent of the author”.

Considering the criticism from the title and some of the dialog about the actual content of my post, I’m surprised that nobody mentioned the riots in the 1920’s, here described in a Wikipedia article: (I chopped the paragraph up for brevity)

With the outcome of the First World War, the relations between Zionism and the Arab national movement seemed to be potentially friendly, […] However, with the defeat and dissolution of the Arab Kingdom of Syria in July 1920 […] The return of several hard-line Palestinian Arab nationalists […] marked the beginning of Palestinian Arab nationalist struggle towards establishment of a national home for Arabs of Palestine […] Amin al-Husseini […] immediately marked Jewish national movement and Jewish immigration to Palestine as the sole enemy to his cause, initiating large-scale riots against the Jews as early as 1920

By “potentially friendly”, the article’s author means there was open acceptance by Arab leadership. On signing the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement for Arab-Jewish Cooperation in 1919, Faisal (who later became Faisal I of Iraq) stated (Also from Wikipedia):

We Arabs… look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home… I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world.

Unfortunately, the potential friendliness was marred by rioting instigated by an Arab nationalist who didn’t want Jews in Arabia. That nationalist, Haj Amin al-Husseini, later became one of Hitler’s allies.

Between two people, a dirty look might lead to a unfriendly shoulder bump which leads to a shove which leads to a punch. Perhaps instead of “Original Sin” I should have used “First Punch”. One could make a good case that the riots were the first punch. But the riots might have ended. When Israel was created, there was no easy way to undo what had been done. Still, in an escalating conflict it’s hard to define the first genuine act of aggression.

Update 2014 07/23: I wrote a post called “Israel’s First Sin and Continued Hope for Peace” and received so much criticism for that title that I have since changed it. This post was titled “Palestinian Sin”, and considering the criticism for other title, I have changed this title as well.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers