END OF AN E.R.A.
Re: Philip Klein's The Last Days of the Clinton Dynasty:
In Catholic grade school we were taught never to rejoice at the misfortune of another. But Hillary's defeat in Iowa is giving me a hard time with this.
-- Herb Flanagan
I enjoyed reading Phillip Klein's article "The Last Days of the Clinton Dynasty." What a howler! That poor man needs to get some rest. Of course no one can be expected to make good sense when they're working till all hours of the night -- in this case morning.
He says, "Hillary Clinton launched her White House bid almost a year ago based largely on her husband's record, and on the promise of a return to the 1990s. Well, on Thursday night, that dog didn't hunt."
I see the situation quite differently. I think Hillary launched her campaign based on her vision of health care for all Americans, her making the case around the world that "women's rights are human rights," her vow to end the war in Iraq, her mission to use diplomacy not force to make our case abroad and honesty and openness not lies and deception to run the country at home. And I think she's made the case that she is a known, tested, tried and true candidate who can take the dirty tricks and Rovian sleaze that awaits any Democratic contender and beat them with poise and dignity, with strength and conviction and launch her own era of peace and prosperity that will far surpass her husband's.
In my estimation this [female dog] can hunt just fine, thank you very much!
-- Diane Lander-Simon
Mr. Klein quotes Hillary as saying, "You know, it is not like I'm talking about ancient Rome. We are talking ten years ago. It's within our memories."
I recall back in the 1992 election, I believe, when I watched some major TV networks discussing the campaign and recent comments from Republicans pointing to Jimmy Carter's failed policies and economy. It was quite common at the time for Republicans to hold up Jimmy's economy and foreign policy disasters as examples of failure.
Of course they had Jimmy sitting right there to respond. "You have to remember that they are talking about things over 10 years ago. That's past history and we should focus on policies and leadership needed for the '90s. This looking back into old history is ridiculous." (My paraphrase.)
-- Jeff Ehler
As much as I enjoyed Philip Klein's article, I think his dismissing the Clinton candidacy may be premature. If there is one good thing I can say about the Clinton family it is that they are not going to go down without a fight, and her disappointing showing in Iowa will probably spur her campaign to redouble their efforts. It could also signal them to move away from the nostalgia of the 1990s and move toward a greater focus on Mrs. Clinton's ideas for the future. Don't count her out just yet; that could be a HUGE mistake.
As for John Edwards, did anyone really think he would win? This record played out in his last campaign for President, and it wasn't all that popular then. No one really hates the rich, most of us may envy them, and we all want to BE them one day. Attacking them every day as some sort of malignant force in the country is not going to be a successful political strategy.
On the article about evangelicals and their problems with Mormonism and Mitt, the problems are related but still different. Many will form judgments about Mitt because of his faith, and I for one think it is fair; your religious world view inform the decisions you make in every facet of your life. As for Mormonism itself, evangelical or "mainstream" Christianity is very far removed from it theologically and there is hardly any relationship between them. It is not wrong for Christians to look at Mormonism and have problems with its theology, nor is it wrong for them to point those differences out. What I do have a problem with is having a Mormon write the article about the issue, since I do not think the writer can avoid making the issue personal. I understand that this is primarily an opinion/analysis site, but the analysis would be better coming from someone without a dog in this particular fight.
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina
The voters in Iowa spoke loud and clearly that they want change, reconciliation, and hope and an end to the polarization and lying the Clintons are so famous for. The voters in New Hampshire will need to decide whether they want a candidate like Barack Obama who will bring the nation together to solve the problems we face and has an excellent first lady in his wife Michelle, a woman of intelligence, class, grace, and dignity, or whether they want to go back to the good old days of the Clintons and Monica, Travelgate, White Water, Vast Right Wing conspiracies, unending lying and polarization. I for one, a lifelong Democrat, choose Barack Obama, and thus choose change, reconciliation and hope.
-- Mark Jeffery Koch
Phillip Klein's column about Hillary is beautifully crafted, but in the end he ignores the demands of his own logic when he proclaims that Mrs. Clinton is history. "Though some would hesitate to be so bold," he says, "as far as this observer is concerned, the era of the Clintons is over." He is echoed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, where Peggy Noonan declares that, "There's something about [Hillary] that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No." Once thought to be inevitable, Mrs. Clinton is now deemed to be too shopworn to defeat a smarmy little lawyer and a first term senator with a past. Despite her best efforts and the help of her friends, she is too obviously flawed to be the people's choice. It's wishful thinking.
Recall the days when Reagan's decision to ignore Iowa was sure to cost him the nomination, when no one as seedy as Nixon could win a national election, when no cornpone liberal with satyriasis and a bitchy wife could trounce George Herbert Walker Bush, Conqueror of Iraq. More ominously and closer to home, let us remember the day when Watergate-exhaustion so soured the public that they sought the embrace of a Georgia bumpkin with an idiot's grin and the backbone of a candy bar. Sweet reason seldom inhibits the American electorate, nor will a national gag-reflex slow Mrs. Clinton's progress. She is going to be nominated, she is going to be elected, she is going to drag America to the brink of civil war.
Only the fact that beneath the cosmetic surgery and the Tammy Faye makeup she is ugly as a piece of medieval iconography can undo her; only prolonged exposure to her Midwestern twang can tarnish her appeal, or if the media start showing file photos of those hats she wore to previous inaugurations, the ones with the wide brims that make her look like a bird feeder. In short, her crude behavior, deathless commitment to silly ideology and absolute lack of charm can hurt her only if the public is given opportunity to discover that she is less telegenic than Huckabee and Romney, and the news jocks won't let that happen.
But that's not the worst of it. If Mrs. Clinton is eliminated from the conflict early, which of the other Democrats running is better suited to the nomination and the office than she? Which Republican is best equipped to pilot a nation deeply polarized and at war with most of the world? Which is intelligent enough to grasp how much trouble we are in, and that all the hard choices postponed for so long must now be made? Which candidate in either party is better suited to the highest office than the Carteresque man who holds it now?
-- Edmund Dantes
I share Mr. Klein's enthusiasm over "The Last Days of the Clinton Dynasty." The Clintons' influence over our nation's institutions and national dialogue has been profoundly negative, corrupting and corrosive, and their departure from the national scene would surely be the most positive development for America since the ascendancy of Reagan in 1980.
-- Peter R. McGrath
Winter Park, Florida
Don't count your chickens just yet.
The road to (and from) the White House is lined with the carcasses of those who underestimated what that pair is capable of. And of those who trusted them too far.
-- Martin Owens
With her emphasis on going back to the '90s, it sounds like Hillary Clinton is promising a bridge back to the 20th century.
-- Mike Harris
MAJ, U.S. Army
I fear that Mr. Klein has fallen into a common media trap. How did Clinton's presidency morph into "a dynasty"? These two -- Hillary and Bill -- were never more than grifters from Arkansas.
-- Cara Lyons Lege'
It is the nature of the op-ed business to be bold. In that spirit, Philip Klein predicts the end of Hillary Clinton based on her showing in Iowa. Here's hoping he's right -- even as my gut tells me he's spectacularly wrong.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
STAY OUT OF IOWA
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Strapped to Caucus:
Well, Jay, you sure made me feel ashamed to be an Iowan. I'm amused at the need you feel to insult us here in the Hawkeye state. We didn't create this caucus monster, but rather just profit from it as any self-respecting free market capitalist conservatives should. It's really fun to be a politically active Iowan at caucus time when there are competitive races in both parties.
Your jealous, petty whining about the impact we have on the process of selecting a president tickles us to death. Please, please ignore Iowa. We're ready to disappear again for the next four years. We've had a belly full of stuffed shirt national media figures traipsing through our homeland or sharpshooting from afar, looking down their elite noses at the "leather-skinned guys in the flannel shirts sitting in diners." Perhaps you should listen a bit more carefully to the "homespun folksy wisdom from the horny-handed farmers." When people around the country ask me to tell them about Iowa, I always just tell them that the weather goes from one extreme to another, there are more pigs than people, and that nothing much happens here. As long as big city America thinks Iowa is Hicksville, you'll mostly just leave us alone.
You see, Jay, you think the worst thing you can do is ignore us, but it's really the best thing you can do for us. Oh, yeah, this folksy Iowa boy is a 36 year veteran of the Iowa National Guard -- twice deployed since 9/11 in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Most likely, we'll go again in the next year or two. That's just fine with me. Mike Huckabee is a good man. Go Mike! 'Bye from flyover country.
-- Dave Morse
CW4, Iowa ARNG
Cedar Falls, Iowa
In a word, OY, and I have never seen or heard a better definition than the author's one.
What I could only utter after hearing the results, Mr. Homnick described beautifully. Although for brevity, nothing does it like a good old fashioned OY.
Talk about shrill? Wouldn't you have loved to be the proverbial "fly-on-the-wall" in Hillary's bedroom Thursday night after her blood-letting (Obama's temporary triumph) and heard the stream of expletives she's so well known for?
Or, perhaps, I should say "would be known for," given the very liberal media's protection tactics. Wonder if they'll report the stuff they really heard?
It might sound like sour grapes if Dick Morris said so, but, wonder if the others have the guts, or is their ideology paramount?
-- Jack Frost
Your observation that Iowans delivered Hillary a major victory twists a filthy stick in an already infected stomach wound. More gut wrenching is the pious joy of the faithful who bestowed this gift of God on her (and us). Don't expect their blind love and hate to become eyes that see just because the country desperately needs real leadership to win the coming battles and the raging war. We need them, but their hallelujah chorus may well continue until taxes double, amnesty blesses 30 million, and homeland security is a nostalgic memory.
-- Jeff Lawrence
VICTORY OR BUST
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Victory, Not Bipartisanship:
Jeffrey Lord's essay was informative, inspiring, and ultimately, unavailing. What he yearns for is virtuous, necessary even. A return to the gutsy,principled Conservatism of our fathers would be an exhilarating and restorative elixir for our political and national ailments. But the flaw in his entreaty is this: the message needs a carrier. And if we have one this cycle, at least as far as Iowa instructs us, he ain't gonna make it.
-- James Eaton
Fine thoughts from Jeffrey Lord about dancing with them that brung us. Here's hoping President-Elect Thompson will put Mr. Lord on his short list for White House Chief of Staff.
-- Doug Welty
I very much enjoy reading TAS online, since I am a Virginian serving in South Korea. Thank you for making it available.
Bipartisanship is commendable, and reasonable, when it commends those who have served our country honorably, especially our men and women in military service.
Bipartisanship, however, does not mean "effective government." Whenever bipartisanship results in bigger government, higher taxes, earmarks, and more intrusion then we the people have been abused by our very own government. Gridlock, when it prevents any of the above, is preferable above bipartisanship. Mr. Lord is right that for a positive change, we need victory not bipartisanship.
Lord asked, "what is the next "big thing" that needs to be accomplished that only a conservative could do? Or perhaps the next three or four "big things"?
Would our conservative leaders consider the following?
1. Weekly honor, publicly, nationally, and loudly, at least one distinguished man or woman in uniform. (As a spectator of true Americans, would TAS consider setting the standard by doing the same?)
2. Set minimum time limits for legislative bill discussion before a vote. If a bill is 1 or 2 pages long, it can be voted on the same day. If the bill is 3 or 4 pages long, including amendments, it can be voted on no earlier than 10 days later. If the bill is 5 or 6 pages, it can be voted on no earlier than 100 days. If the bill is 7 or 8 pages, no earlier than 1000 days after proposal. And so forth with a minimum font of 10 pt on 8.5x11 paper. This way a legislator can know exactly what she/he is voting for, amendments and earmarks are inhibited and transparent, and the president can quickly approve or veto. This could happen since newspapers currently summarize the essence of multi-tome legislation in one paragraph.
3. Propose term limits for elected federal legislators to three terms as a representative and three more as a senator. This would require a constitutional amendment.
4. Permanently eliminate savings interest, capital gains, and investment income from taxable income. Set a low flat tax for wages and gift income up to the level of the U.S. president's salary. Concurrent with these changes, I suggest a flat tax of 100% for wages + gift income that exceeds the president's salary. Many conservatives are upset by excessive compensation as well as by excessive taxes.
(Only a conservative could make these changes. A liberal politician would not, although they claim to want to tax the rich, since recent studies have shown that the richest also tend to be politically liberal. This would not require a constitutional amendment.)
-- Roy Henk
While Jeffrey Lord and Republicans consider the meaning of Conservatism I posit a simple reality to them: A balanced budget. Conservatism starts with the most important resource managed prudently, and my friends that is the almighty dollar. Unfortunately for Republicans this Conservative principle has completely eluded them. From 1970 until 2007 (37yrs, 25yrs of them Republican) the Federal government has lived beyond its means. Jeffery Lord lambastes Clinton, who surely was a below par President, but for all Clinton's failures he did something Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Ford and Nixon couldn't do... balance consecutive budgets. In fact since Eisenhower's last year a Republican has balanced the budget TWICE, and each of these times it has been inherited from a Democrat. 47 years of Republican incompetence cannot change the fact that the true economic conservatives are Democrats. When Republicans wish to live in the same world that ordinary Americans live in -- a world where they must spend less than they earn -- then Republicans will take back the House and the Senate and probably the White House too.
-- Nathan Maskiell
Jeffrey Lord's article is magnificent. I, too, have had it with bi-partisanship. The current occupant of the White House was a fool to think he could bring a new tone to Washington. Give me a candidate that promises to spit in the eye of Teddy Kennedy and he might get my vote.
I have had it with moderates. I have had it with southern governors. I have had it with compassionate conservatives. I have had it with supporters of illegal aliens. I have had it with those who want to fight a kinder, gentler war. This country is yearning for a president who will go for the throat -- here and abroad! I will not hold my nose and vote for someone just because they are labeled "Republican."
-- Jack Hughes
EYES ON THE TIGER
Re: George Neumayr's Save the Tiger:
I'm never amazed that Big Cats do what big cats do (or Venomous Snakes or Scorpions to complete the children's fable). What does amaze me is the moral as well as substance support fools get when they throw any shred of common sense to the wind and end up the victim of their own stupidity. There is little in the way of excusable behavior by the Three Stooges in this affair and no excuse for people like Mark Geragos but such people are their own breed of predator.
As a Cat lover, I never lose sight of the unwavering fact that while my Cats will never look upon me as a "mouse" they will always see a mouse for what it is and there is nothing I can do about that. Likewise, an adult Tiger is going to see the three fools involved in this episode as what they were, a threat to them and, ultimately, food. Clearly, the wrong animals were behind bars in this case.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
LOSER IN TWO AMERICAS
Re: Timothy P. Carney's Edwards Can't Win:
John Edwards represents the zenith of hypocrisy. Let's look at this raging socialist. He came from nothing by using his powers of rhetoric to take money from these same corporations he allegedly hates. His vast wealth is their gift to him. And I promise you this. If John Edwards got you a million dollar verdict for some real or imagined (yes, folks a lot of these large verdicts are for imagined injuries) injury, much more of it would go to the Edward's bank account than to yours.
Next, look at what St. John the Beautiful did when he left America's best part time job as senator. He became a paycheck casher at about half a million a year with one of those corporations he hates so much. No' he didn't do ANYTHING, just took their money, I guess for being so pretty and filled with hate.
Hypocrisy seems to be the one enduring trait of Democrats. John Edwards biting the hand that continues to feed him; Al Gore so concerned about the environment that he drives a fleet of huge SUV's and lives in a multi-million dollar smoke belching palace.
And they want to tell us how to live!
-- Jay Molyneauxm
Denver, North Carolina
I'LL TAX YOUR OLD, TIRED FEET
Re: Christopher Orlet's Never Too Late to Serve:
In reference to Mr. Orlet's excellent article, I want to say something smart. Provide some insight, try to talk about the problem. But I can't. I'm just way too angry at the whole mess.
I think the only statement I can provide is that there has already been one revolution in this country about taxes. How long 'till the next one?
In the mean time, let's put these nice seniors to work so they can pay their usury taxes. Let's continue to allow our politicians to focus our hate against oil companies. This is a very good example. Oil companies make about nine cents on the sale of a gallon of gasoline. They have made between seven and ten cents to the gallon for decades. The federal government, however, makes thirty-seven cents on the sale of a gallon of gasoline. Depending on which state you live in, your state government makes anywhere from twenty to fifty cents for each gallon.
Have you paid attention to your phone bill? Cable bill? There's plenty of taxes in both of those. Oh, and let us remember that there is about a 22 percent tax burden in every single product that you purchase. That's before your state's (or locality) sales tax. This 22 percent comes from the various corporate taxes. It will be different depending on your state and locality, that's a national average.
I'm a smoker. I know I shouldn't smoke and hopefully I'll quit soon. However, I pay about four and a half dollars for a pack of cigarettes here in Texas. Better than two of those dollars are taxes.
And I haven't even started on income tax.
Is anyone else getting a little hot under the collar? Anyone at all?
-- Charles Campbell
What has happened in Greenburgh, New York (my hometown growing up) is a microcosm of what has happened everywhere in the country: government officials (at every level) believe they are entitled to an ever-expanding share of taxpayer money. Why? As long as large numbers of Americans are exempt from paying income taxes, they will demand ever greater shares of "something for nothing." And government will be more than willing to provide it -- even if it means putting grannies back to work to save their houses.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
What a joke, don't talk about the taxes, talk about how to 'help' people pay them. Our local school board is floating a referendum that will add about $50 annually (a small amount to be sure) to the taxes of a $100,000 home here in north central Wisconsin over the next 3-4 years. That in spite of enrollment that has declined significantly in the last 5 years or so and is expected to decline further. On top of that, the geniuses that have been elected claim the increase will only allow them to maintain the "excellent" programs we already have. It will be interesting to see how the voters look at that, "We need more to do the same for fewer students." I rather suspect I should float this idea to this genius group and they can use this as a suggestion for the fixed income folks young and old, who might have trouble keeping up with their tax bill and then the board can tell them how heartless they are for opposing this need "For the children." It's enough to make a person puke.
-- Roger Ross
So exactly what are we the peons to do about "gangsters" who rule us? Vote? Yeah that's it. Vote for the Huck, or Obama, or McCain? All three would be a disaster for this once free land.
When I voted for the Gipper in 1980, I was voting for the chance to re-establish limited constitutional government. It was a valiant effort. Unfortunately, an effort lost in the Bushes.
We the peons are faced with a collapsing welfare state at home and the evil of Islam resurgent abroad. Well the evil of Islam is also festering within. Did Iowa give we the peons that our putative rulers have the balls to do what must be done to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity? Well at least we'll be awash in ethanol.
-- Ralph Diamond
Christopher Orlet wrote: "People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," says Greenburgh's Town Supervisor Paul Feiner, a man who doesn't seem know the difference between "less" and "fewer."
Although I found Supervisor Feiner's frequent letters to the editor insufferable when I used to read them when I lived in the New York area, he is right about "less" taxes, and Christopher Orlet is wrong.
"Fewer" would be correct if Feiner was referring to the number of different types of taxes imposed, but in this case he is clearly speaking of the level of taxes imposed, so "less" is correct and entirely appropriate.
-- Howard Hirsch
Several weeks go, a series of letters were exchanged on this webpage over the question whether Mormons were Christians. One side charged that those who answered in the negative were ignorant and bigots. I wrote expressing my principle reason why I believed Mormonism were another religion entirely -- namely its non-Trinitarianism. Mr. Shreve responded consulting the dictionary's minimalist definition of Christian/Christianity and challenged me to explain why we shouldn't let the dictionary settle the question. I submitted my reply but it was never published. I assume it was because The American Spectator had grown tired the subject and cut off the discussion -- who could blame them?
Now Mr. Shreve has taken umbrage that Evangelicals regard Mormonism as a "cult." Quite frankly, this Lutheran could sleep very well if the worst thing that was said about Lutheranism was that it was a "cult." Be that as it may, Mr. Shreve again resorts to the dictionary as an authority arguing to the effect that if one regards Mormonism as a cult then all sort of religious and political groups are cults as well.
My first response is that, when it comes to dictionaries, lexicographers have no competence in resolving theological questions. More to the point, however, one has to understand words as any community or group uses them. Since its inception, the Lutheran Church has regarded itself as "evangelical"; however, in the parlance of this country, Lutherans are not counted as members of the Evangelical community. There are good reasons for that found in the particulars of American religious history no matter how unhappy it makes the Lutherans. In the same way, Evangelicals use the word "cult" as to mean "heretical." Unfortunately, this leads us back to the earlier issue of Mormonism's relationship to Christianity.
My attitude toward the matter is that we should recognize things as they are. Certainly open to discussion; but with some realism absent the rancor. Accept people as they are and how they understanding themselves. There is no requirement you agree with them; but at the same time you have no privilege to insist they change to suit you. If Catholics, Baptists, etc. do not believe Mormons are Christians for their reasons while Mormons for their own reasons think they are part of the Universal Church, recognize division as the way of the world and human nature. All we have is persuasion. Short of that, we should pray that peace and blessing be to the other's house.
-- Mike Dooley
My Catholic-Christian Faith has many beliefs that might seem strange to a non-Christian or unbeliever, some of which I do not understand but "accept on faith". However, since the founding of that Church many (beginning with the Apostles and St. Paul) have, for 2,000-years, commented on the teachings of Jesus and subjected them, as both individuals and such collectives as Church Counsels, to the most careful examination, sifting and sorting to determine what was true, what was questionable and what was evidently false.
Our Christian "New Covenant" is based on the revelations of the "Old Covenant" and, to a considerable extent, validated by historical sources well beyond the revelations of the New Testament.
The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons/LDS), like Islam, is founded on the unsubstantiated revelations claimed by one man, very loosely based on orthodox and time-tested Judeo-Christian teachings AND not subject to the tests of history, archeology, and reason. Both the LDS and Islam reject such tests and have always refused to question their "sacred texts" as opposed to the Christian Churches 2,000-year tradition of ongoing reexamination and questioning.
Like most members of the LDS, your contributor Carrie Sheffield has failed to publicly note the considerable attrition of her fellow (Birth & Convert) Mormons who have left that Church; But, are still listed as members as they have not formally resigned or likewise been cast out.
Mr. Romney, when discussing the persecution of his Church, failed to note that it also persecuted others (i.e., Look up the "Mountain Meadow Massacre") and is a polytheistic faith at great variance from basic Christian teachings. My objection to Mr. Romney is NOT the nature of his faith, but that he has been less than honest about it.
-- James Pawlak
Just thought I'd throw this in. I did a quick check of the religious affiliations of our Presidents and came up with something I'd forgotten. Dwight D. Eisenhower was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, though, between 1915 and 1953, he wasn't active with the Witnesses. After he was elected President, he was baptized into the Presbyterian church.
There's also this. Four Presidents were Baptists: Warren G. Harding, Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, and William (Willy) Jefferson Clinton. Maybe that should inform you Huckabee supporters a little.
-- Mike Showalter
Re: Letters (under "Stopped Clock") in Reader Mail's Latter-Day Letters:
I rise to defend the Kerry Clock -- with reservations. I concur with my fellow Texan, Mr. Clark, in that the clock served the general and useful purpose of documenting what is only the latest perfidy of the junior senator from the people's republic. I recommend its retention, with a small change. When I first noticed it, I had no idea to what it referred, and had to research further to understand it. Some short text would be helpful, to the effect "on such and such date, John Kerry... He hasn't done it, and he's had this long." Please also, convert the accumulating hours to days.
I thank Mr. Lambert for his elaboration on the bureaucratic requirements, but I differ with him on his final point. I strive to prevent any speaker within earshot from using any form of the transitive verb "swiftboat" with anything other than its accurate connotation: to skewer someone with the truth about his past, with the implication that it be lest he become an even greater danger.
I sympathize with the other two writers, Messrs. Gronke and Herz, to wit: that one of the benefits of Kerry's defeat in 2004 was that we wouldn't have to see that mug every day; and that treason has defined penalties, and they should have been pursued.
-- Stephen Foulard
Has Jacque offered any explanation of why he hasn't quickly dispatched the Swift Boat allegations? Seems like he is denying the recipients (disabled vets) of needed financial assistance by remaining in a holding pattern.
Surely it couldn't be that the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth now, could it?
Keep up the great work.
-- S. Epperson
Peoples Republic of Olympia, Washington
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article