Let me try to apologize to some of the people that I have inadvertently "besmirched" so to speak in the last few days. I also want to explain where it is that I am "coming from" to use an old 60's term. The past few days I have found myself in the position of completely understanding something, and trying to deliver that message to other people, and having that message misunderstood, or attacked. Wesley Clark told me in Coral Gables last year (actually it wasn't just me, there were about 20 people there), that most people's first response to a political statement is always a defensive response. I guess I had to learn that first hand for myself this weekend. I want to share with all of the people who come upon this article, exactly what I know about politics and where we are today, and how I know it. This has taken me years of research, conversation, speculation and eventually... understanding. What I want to explain is how we have gotten ourselves and our nation into the fix we are in, but also I also want to suggest ways that we can remedy the situation. Referring back to what Wesley Clark told me, try not to take a defensive posture while reading this. You have the perfect right to agree or disagree. I just happen to know I'm right and I can prove it. Other people also know I am right, but they are so entrenched in the current political situation, it would be political suicide to agree with me, or to tell you themselves.
The usual way that most people come to a decision about who they support, or which party they support or whether to remain independent, is through the media. The Republicans are fond of saying that the media is liberally biased. That is not true. It depends what media you are talking about. FOX TV is defiantly not liberally biased, The Washington Times newspaper and many other radio stations, newspapers and TV outlets are also very conservatively biased. Same as on the liberal side. Like I said, it all depends on whom you are referring to. One thing that I can say, without a doubt, except for public TV and Radio and publications that do not accept ads, they are all corporately biased. So are most of your politicians. There is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. This statement is so hard to explain with an article.
Let's take Hugo Chavez for an example. Right away he conjures up an emotion in people. Most Americans don't like him. I myself did not care for him when he said that we had imperialistically grabbed Puerto Rico. I even wrote an article explaining that they had a referendum on independence, statehood or to remain as a territory. I had a big blow out with the Vets against the Iraq War (VAIW) because I wrote an article on Liberalpro that was titled "Throw Mama from the Train" after Cindy Sheehan went to Venezuela and took a picture with Hugo's arm around her. I compared her to Jane Fonda. My views have changed.
Hugo Chavez is no threat to the United States of America. He is however, a very real threat to the people that lost millions when he nationalized CITGO and started putting the money from the sale of Venezuelan oil out of the pockets of the oil baron's and into the Venezuelan treasury. That certainly got the corporate people here in the US plenty angry. Comprende? So what happened to Hugo? Next thing you know, he is getting some very bad press in the US and then faces a coup (backed by guess who) and is thrown out of office by the "anti-Communists" or "anti-socialists". Actually, it was people financed by the Corporacracy. These are the same people that make sure that Chavez gets all the bad press that they can dish out. It's hardly mentioned that ordinary people rose up and overturned the coup and then he was reelected in a democratic election that was supervised by the UN and Former President Jimmy Carter, where he got 70% of the vote. The fact is that more people came out to vote percentage-wise than people here do in the US. You can also read how "Former Senator" Rick Santorum charged that he has purchased all of these MIGS from the Russians. He conveniently failed to mention that the f-16's he had bought from the US for big bucks were crashing and killing pilots because the US would not sell him spare parts for the planes. He fails to mention that we put a weapons embargo against his country and actually forced him to buy from other countries. He also didn't mention that his country was experiencing numerous incursions by rebel Colombian groups that are armed and financed by the US. Are you getting the picture? We only get half the story from our media. This guy has done more for the poor people in his country than almost any other leader that they have ever had. Not only that, he has also sold heating oil to the northeast US at almost wholesale prices to show the American people that he has no animosity towards the people of the US. This all happens to be true. The reason I mention this is because it is a great example of Corporatism. So why did Chavez call Bush a devil at the UN? Probably because we have been trying for years to make him look like the devil in front of the world. What is his crime? Trying to keep the money from his country's main resource in his people's pockets.
How is Corporatism affecting us here in the US? There is not a simple answer to this question. This is how it affects every one of us. First off, they control politics. People can't afford to enter the political arena anymore without a large infusion of cash money. Just to get through the primaries for Congress can take millions. Who can come up with that kind of money unless they can come up with corporate sponsors? It takes less money to sponsor a driver in NASCAR than it does to finance a congressman. So whom do you think we have running? Maybe in a district in the back hills of Kentucky or West Virginia you can get elected with some good speeches and a political "presence", but in most places, if you don't have a million bucks in your pocket, you aren't going anywhere, brother. Don't count on the DNC or RNC to give you that money either. You have to have their nomination for that. So where do you go? To the corporate sponsors. By the time you have gone through the exploratory committees, then the party primary, and then the actual political race, with all that it entails, you have probably spent a few million dollars. Then you get your $165,200.00 seat.
So what do they want for supporting you? Now remember, most large corporations today are 'Trans-national Corporations". They have no allegiance to a particular country. What they want from you are tax breaks, incentives for moving jobs to your state, legislation so that they can keep their money in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. Relaxation's on environmental rules for companies that pollute the groundwater, or the air, or pour mercury in the air, that eventually goes into the sea. Some like the AMA are against (except for a few medical people with morals) national healthcare, as are the insurance companies, and the medical supply companies and some malpractice lawyers along with private hospitals. Some companies want to privatize prisons; others want to privatize law enforcement. They already have privatized a large majority of the Army. Finance clerks, supply sergeants, custodial staff and messhalls are run by civilians. Think we are saving money by paying people to do what soldiers used to do? I don't think so.
There are other ways politicians can pay them back for the campaigns they paid for. They can let them outsource jobs with treaties like NAFTA and all those other treaties that eliminate borders. These treaties looked good on paper, but they haven't exactly worked out in our country's best interests. The politicians can pay huge subsidies to oil companies (for what, I don't know, but they pay them). These politicians can pay huge agricultural conglomerates for not growing things. The Corprocrats pay companies like Bechtel hundreds of millions of our tax dollars for work in Iraq that was never completed. Besides paying for their campaigns, these corporations will pay for country club memberships, junkets, boats, cars, and give them jobs in the event they get thrown out of office. Keep an eye on Rick Santorum. I'll bet you within months he's working for the association for a better environment or some crazy group like that. Just like Mike Campbell here in South Carolina. Mike ran for Lt. Governor but got beaten in the primaries. A week later he got a job with some institute that was really a GOP front for the privatization of social security.
There is a difference between a capitalist and a corprocrat. A capitalist will compete on a level playing field and try to win with better ideas. They come up with new innovations first, hiring people that can think on their feet and that know how to get things done, offering a better product for less, or doing things like advertising creatively or giving a better guarantee. A capitalist takes pride in his product or service and believes that the better product or service, the better profits and business will be. A capitalist adds to the community that the product or service provided is located.
A corprocrat will try to win by getting laws and regulations changed in his favor, by reducing pay and benefits to employees, by negotiating for tax breaks, by trying to get government subsidies, by dealing in unfair business practices and paying bureaucrats to look the other way. A corprocrat will move his company to where he can get the cheapest labor and the lowest tax burden, regardless of his workforce. A corprocrat knows that workers are just workers, they add nothing to the bottom line, and they just decrease the size of the bottom line. A coprocrat makes his product as cheaply as possible, or provides the minimum service. They do things well enough to avoid a lawsuit or a refund. A corprocrat has no country, no loyalties except to the shareholder, and even those loyalties can be suspect at times.
Corprocrats have been running this nation's government for decades. We have seen the outsourcing of jobs, the consolidation of wealth. We have seen so many mergers and acquisitions that it is almost impossible to know who owns what, unless you are keeping the books. You might think that eating an organic granola bar is benefiting not only your body but the organic community until you find out that the brand you thought was a small noble corporation is actually made by Coca-Cola or Kellogg's or Con-Agra. In the world of today, the same companies that produce organic food, could also be among the largest polluters on the planet. You may refuse to buy from one brand and boycott that brand and buy from another, only to find that the same business groups own both brands.
It's the same with political parties. We have seen a switch from the Republican majority to the Democratic majority. They fail to mention that the same companies and corporations and associations fund the campaigns of both parties. This corporacracy doesn't put all it's eggs in one basket. The winners of today could be the losers of tomorrow. So when you celebrate the victory of the Democrats over the Republicans, know that the same people are funding both parties. There still is a difference even today. The oil companies and the lawyers and medical people support the Republicans over the Democrats. The Unions and the Teachers still support the Democrats. The difference however, is getting smaller for each passing year. We the people are still not the ones that decide who it is that runs for political office. That is still done by the mighty corporacracy. Still, every journey, no matter how long or how hard, starts with the first step. We Americans must together take that first step and take back our government from the people who regard our Democracy as just another avenue towards greater profits. It still begins with us. It also could end with us. This noble experiment that officially started in Philadelphia on July 4th, 1776 is on the ropes. Every day that passes we find that citizen's control less and less of our own government, while corporations control more of it. My one overriding concern is that I won't live as a citizen of the United States of America; but as an employee or pensioner of the United States, Inc. The shame of it will be that the people who control our nation, will be executives of trans-national corporations that might not be citizens of this country, or for that matter, even live here. We have a chance to change this, and it's not complicated. All we have to do is demand that elections are not financed through corporations or special interests. That will in itself, level the playing field.
People will tell you that it can't be done. They will tell you that you can't stop the flow of corporate and special interest money to political parties and candidates. That is a lie perpetrated by people that want to keep the status quo. Don't believe it, it can be done. Those people that say it can't be done are suspect. We as a nation can do anything if we want to bad enough. We can beat two massive world powers on two fronts (WWII). Send people to the moon, cure TB and polio unlock the human genome. We can even defeat terrorism instead of just trying to make money on it. There is not much that American's can't do if they have the will. This Thanksgiving, give thanks that we still have time to reclaim our birthright from those that would take it from us.
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
The Democrats are not powerful enough at this point for it to be prudent strategy to go up right now against the corporatists.
WHen was the last time the Democrats went up against some big corporate interests?
The instance that comes to my mind is Clinton's health care debacle-- a debacle because the corporations went off for public opinion in those ads with the worried couple. THe Democrats were much more powerful then --in the opening phases of a new presidency-- and still they got creamed.
The battle against corporatism does need to be fought. But the American people are not already primed for that battle. And the Dems look unlikely to be able to win them over-- given their limited political skills, given the stacked deck of the corporate media, and given the discrediting of the government and of liberal policies that the Bushites have managed to accomplish with much of the American people.
Fight easier battles first, those that do not directly engage the most powerful monied interests of the country.
Go after the BUshites, who are much more vulnerable than the corporatists. Develop the trust of the American people.
Then when the correlation of forces has shifted, take on the less vulnerable and more favored powerful adversary: corporatism.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 12:18:39 AM
BTW, in my opinion, you were right the first time about Cindy SHeehan going down for a nice photo op with Hugo Chavez.
The point is not whether or not Hugo Chavez is a great man or a menace, a defender of the downtrodden or an undemocratic son of a bitch. THe point is that a political figure needs to take into account what her audience BELIEVES him to be, which bears upon her real responsibility: to act in such a way as to advance the cause of Goodness in the system.
Cindy Cheehan was useful for one reason only-- I mean really could accomplish something that the rest of us could not. That is because she was the mother of a fallen Marine, and therefore SHE HAD THE STANDING AS A MOTHER OF A DEAD SOLDIER to speak to the president in a way the rest of us then could not.
It was because of Casey that Cindy got to talk to the nation, because it made her into a generic, representative noble American mother. THis representativeness in a sacred category is what gave her access to the network media like no one had ever had.
As soon as she did something like get the picture taken with Chavez, she just became another lefty. SHe threw away the one asset she had, and simply became able to preach to the already converted.
It was proof that Cindy Sheehan --whatever political virtues she may have-- had poor political judgment, and did not really understand where her power lay. She just tossed it away.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 12:27:55 AM
"The enemy of my enemies is my friend." Hugo Chavez is my friend,period. Sheehan recognises this, why do you not?
Your words reflect a cowardice that I know does not lie in your heart, why do they appear in your words? When Democrats remain silent when they should be speaking loudly and truthfully our nation is diminished, when we fail to do our duty to this democracy we help our enemies. When we refuse to speak to lies we reinforce those lies.
The abortive attempt at health care reform headed by Hillary Clinton made a major mistake at the outset, it failed to include the AMA and thus made a powerful enemy that doomed the process. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try again and again and yet again until we curb the excesses in our inefficient and basically unfair system. Nor should we
use such a sophmoric effort as some parable to justify cowardice and inaction...shame on you.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 7:24:39 AM
and not Mr. Gatto. He doesnt want my words as I am a Green sympathiser, he knows I am more concerned with the sand flea than with people....or some such crap.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 7:27:36 AM
I assume you are aware that the only path to victory in the struggle against corporate slavery is an educated, motivated voter base. That is under the condition that the vote is counted honestly.
You make distinction between corporatist and capitalist, neither is mentioned in the first 75 years of our nation, and had no bearing on the Patriots that fought for independence from the monarchy of England. We were all about INDIVIDUAL liberty at the start.
Ancestors of today's corporatist fomented the civil war and oversaw the enactment of laws allowing artificial entities to conduct commerce and enter into contracts as legal entities. From my research, the perpetrators were the recipients of the wealth generated by the opium trade with China that was fronted by Americans since the British crown outlawed the trade to English flagged ships. All beneficiaries were related by blood to the Scottish owners of the British East India Co.
After the civil war, the American populace who had gone from a 90% farm,home industry base to a 60% urban, corporate industrial base, argued and demonstrated for a worker voice of industry's direction. This was the period of the birth of the Labor Movement and the inspiration of Marx's ideas.
The 14th amendment was passed to enable recently freed slaves, legal access to equality as citizens. The 14th was introduced and it's passage was funded by 'philanthropic' business leaders. In 1886, in the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara Vs. Southern Pacific RR., The sitting SC Chief Justice, Morrison Remick Waite, a member of Yale's Skull & Bones class of 1837, arbitrarily stated that the court granted the corporation standing as 'citizens' under the 14th amendment and ever since they have held the same rights as you and me, like they were people.
Skull & Bones was Founded on opium profits earned by the Russell family, working as agents of Scottish relatives invested in the British East India Co. and high officers of the masonic Lodges.
The people that vote today need to be educated on the history of their controller's' source of power.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 1:36:59 AM
Those who do not know history, are easy prey to myths, lies, and propaganda.
For anyone who lacks your understanding of our history, I recommend the book, "Gangs of America," by Ted Nace.
Along with "Indispensable Enemies," by the late Walter Karp, and "All Our Relations," by Winona LaDuke, it should be required reading for anyone who wishes to call themself a progressive.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 1:21:04 PM
I didn't say anything about siding with capitalists, all I did was make a distinction about what the difference is. I don't really want people who read this to believe that this is a socialist idea. It's just a comment on where we are now, and the article should be taken as a whole instaed of cut up in little parts. That gets away from the fact that we no longer own our government which along with many other crimes of late, should be dealt with so that we can get a government that represnts citizens, not corporations. That's the whole idea. It's not hard to understand. We can dabble in semantics until we have nothing left to save. As fot the first commenter, I didn't ask the Democrats to do squat.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 5:45:31 PM
Mr. Gatto states so many opinions as fact and has issued such a broad range of of them that it is hard to know what to say.
I am very uncomfortable, though with his characterization of campaign contributions as something akin to legalized bribery. Candidates and parties have legitimate uses for money.
The ability to raise money from a wide variety of sources is a respectable and proper prerequisite to candidacy for political aspirants seeking office in a political system representative of a free and market oriented economy.
The ability to use the money raised to assist other candidates and parties compatible to a candidate is respectable and proper in any type of popularly based electoral system.
From my experience, the difficulty with our current system of donor oriented campaign financing- outside of outright illegality like that practiced by Abramoff and DeLay- is that the donor base is rather narrow and candidates tend to be sheltered from the concerns of citizens or groups who are not habitual donors. That is to say, our current system has created an echo chamber in which consistent donors voices are heard over and over again.
Nevertheless, the necessity of candidates to attend to fund-raising and the freedom of donors to deny funding to unacceptable candidates provides an essential feed back loop for the current system and assures the candidates' accountability to the donors. Stating that the candidates are accountable to donors should not be conflated with Mr. Gatto's wild and unsupported claims that corpocrats are dictating laws to the legislature because of the campaign funding system.
Mr. Gatto's claim that campaign finance practices are somehow implicated in the corruption of the 109th Congress can be easily refuted by resorting to facts. There are laws and rules in Congress that limit the ability of lobbyists to influence legislation and attentive reading of the corruption charges made against numerous senior members of 109th Congress shows that they were seriously violated.
These violations occurred in Congress and not in the home districts and involved members with considerable seniority who represented safe seats. These violations did not involve members operatiing in a politically competitive environment for whom large campaign war chests would have provided a substantial electoral advantage. Returning to the subject of campaign finance reform.
It is hard for me to understand how a publicly financed election system like the one in use in Arizona or in Maine protects the public from demagogic candidates pandering to corporate interests better than the current one.
The popular picture drawn from Maine and Arizona's experiement with public funding is of the crusading candidate, freed from attending banquets with donors, going door to door to meet people and attend their needs. There is howerver no evidence to show that the public funding programs have actually increased candidates' receptivity to public opinion and there is no feedback loop for accountability in the public funding proposals.
Freeing a candidate from the need of actively seeking funding from numerous and politically diverse contributors could have the perverse effect of lowering the candidate's sense of accountability.
This lack of accountability and feed back make me resistant to the proposals for public financing of campaigns. Instead of seeking legal remedies, I think political solutions to this problem would be more effective.
Outside of clear cut bribery and influence peddling a la Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Ney et al, I think that the characterization of campaign contributions as legal bribery is unfounded.
Political operations need money for legitimate political purposes and the current privately based financing system provides a feedback loop and accountability that strengthens rather than weakens the legitimacy of government.
Public funding guarantees funding and weakens the feed back loop and accountability.
The current system produces an echo chamber effect that has weakened the representative nature of our democracy.
Experience has shown the echo chamber can be breached by the prudent use of organized public advocacy, of political activism and targetted fund raising like Emily's list.
Methods like those stated above increase public participation and awareness and hence the accountability of politicians. Therefore, these are more dependable reform efforts than adding another bureaucracy that would extend the government's control into yet another sphere of political and economic freedom.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York
by
rob Chapman (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, November 23, 2006 at 11:02:50 AM
Mr. Gatto's (me) claim that campaign financing is legalized bribery is refected in this feedback loop that says (over and over)you obviously like our two party system the way that it is, and you defend it by reapeating yourself over and over. If you are actually saying something. The one thing you are obviously overlooking Mr. Chapman, is that there are only two political parties in this nation that are viable, and that is directly related to campaign donations other than by individual voters.
Are you trying to tell all of us that almost three billion dollars was what it should cost and that three billion dollars was a justifiable mandate that voters paid to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with candidates? You must work for either a politician, or a political action campaign group, or are directly involved in corporate campaigning.
I will say this agian. TYhe amount of money that is given to candidates from both major parties from corporate interests and PACS is legalized bribery. If I didn't believe it sir, I would not have said it, and you have not presented any material fact that proves me wrong except opinion. I can my friend, provide you with numbers. Amounts, dates and percentages that went to both parties by the same corporate donors, therby proving that these "donations" are there to legally buy influence.Is that or is it not leagalized bribery? You must have a vested reason to argue with facts that I will present if you just ask me what it is that you question the validity of. Just put up or shut up. I can prove my case. You can only surmise.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Thursday, November 23, 2006 at 5:08:57 PM
Mr. Gatto states so many opinions as fact and has issued such a broad range of of them that it is hard to know what to say.
I am very uncomfortable, though with his characterization of campaign contributions as something akin to legalized bribery. Candidates and parties have legitimate uses for money.
ardee....under our present, and many would posit, unfair system money rules. No argument here. The argument lies in recognising exactly who benefits from the politicos need for large sums of money.....
The ability to raise money from a wide variety of sources is a respectable and proper prerequisite to candidacy for political aspirants seeking office in a political system representative of a free and market oriented economy.
The ability to use the money raised to assist other candidates and parties compatible to a candidate is respectable and proper in any type of popularly based electoral system.
From my experience, the difficulty with our current system of donor oriented campaign financing- outside of outright illegality like that practiced by Abramoff and DeLay- is that the donor base is rather narrow and candidates tend to be sheltered from the concerns of citizens or groups who are not habitual donors. That is to say, our current system has created an echo chamber in which consistent donors voices are heard over and over again.
ardee...and herein lies the rub. You seem to skip across the veneer of our present system and fail to dive deep into the result of this "echo chamber". The ned result is, in extreme, lobbyists writing legislation, politicians pandering to the large camapign check and ignoring the real needs of the republic.
Nevertheless, the necessity of candidates to attend to fund-raising and the freedom of donors to deny funding to unacceptable candidates provides an essential feed back loop for the current system and assures the candidates' accountability to the donors. Stating that the candidates are accountable to donors should not be conflated with Mr. Gatto's wild and unsupported claims that corpocrats are dictating laws to the legislature because of the campaign funding system.
ardee....those unacceptable currently translates to those who will not do the corporate bidding and the accountability of which you speak is not to the grassroots but to the boardrooms.
Mr. Gatto's claim that campaign finance practices are somehow implicated in the corruption of the 109th Congress can be easily refuted by resorting to facts. There are laws and rules in Congress that limit the ability of lobbyists to influence legislation and attentive reading of the corruption charges made against numerous senior members of 109th Congress shows that they were seriously violated.
These violations occurred in Congress and not in the home districts and involved members with considerable seniority who represented safe seats. These violations did not involve members operatiing in a politically competitive environment for whom large campaign war chests would have provided a substantial electoral advantage. Returning to the subject of campaign finance reform.
ardee....are you writing a fairy tale here or are you seriously uninformed? The Gingrich Congress was one of the greatest abuses of power in American history, and th eleast responsive to the needs of all Americans. DeLay faces trial for funneling donations made to the RNCC to local races in violation of laws. Do you think him an isolated case, I believe he is the tip of the iceberg only.
It is hard for me to understand how a publicly financed election system like the one in use in Arizona or in Maine protects the public from demagogic candidates pandering to corporate interests better than the current one.
The popular picture drawn from Maine and Arizona's experiement with public funding is of the crusading candidate, freed from attending banquets with donors, going door to door to meet people and attend their needs. There is howerver no evidence to show that the public funding programs have actually increased candidates' receptivity to public opinion and there is no feedback loop for accountability in the public funding proposals.
ardee...I am unfamiliar with this subject as it applies to these two states but simply cannot fathom how an ending of contributions from corporations gives the grassroots less power. If there are flaws in the process there at least it si a good start. What you suggest is a continuation of the status quo, a rotten idea.
ardee....Anyway, Bob, welcome back and I hope you remain to debate, you may be wrong but you are literate.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, November 24, 2006 at 10:53:14 AM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
