The Freedom Minute

Welcome Fellow John & Ken Listeners

Return here for upcoming posts on the LA Budget, illegal photo ticketing by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and recommendations for the upcoming June election.

May 20th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Paul Koretz Backtracks – Sort Of

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott the State of Arizona in protest of their recently passed immigration law, SB 1070, which targets illegal immigrants. Regardless of what one might think of the law, I was particularly troubled by the public statements of Council Members Janice Hahn and Paul Koretz in which they equated Arizona with Nazi Germany. Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive on this subject since some members of my family were victims of the Nazi regime and died in the concentration camps.

My objection to the use of this type of hyperbole is that when public officials (and private citizens) begin equating everything they might object to with the atrocities of the Holocaust, it minimizes the slaughter of 12 million people.  Paul Koretz, who also lost family members in the Holocaust, should be particularly conscious of the dangers of this type of grandstanding.  However, during last week’s council meeting, this is what he said in regard to Arizona’s new laws (including two measures relating to public education):

“If this was being proposed at the Federal level, I would think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany.  It’s not much different.  Fortunately it’s a State, but this State needs to be stung in every possible way until they stop this behavior.  We can’t let this advance any further, this is absolutely dangerous.”

So last night, Paul Koretz attended the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting to speak to his constituents.  Not surprisingly, he was taken to task about these comments.  Here’s what he had to say in his defense. (My comments are in parenthesis.)

First of all, anything that they’ve heard that I said is probably from right wing talk radio and not what I actually said. (However a clip of his actual comments were played numerous times on the radio show in question.) So allow me to say what I actually said.

What I said was that I’m concerned not only with Arizona’s immigration law but some other things in addition that Arizona has done and gives me great pause that it’s more than just the desire to deal with illegal aliens … Beyond the immigration issue, Arizona has recently voted to ban all ethnic studies courses (that elicited cheers from the audience.  It’s also not quite true.) so Jewish Studies, Latino Studies, the programs that we have in California and every other state would be banned.

(This is absolutely not true. Quoting from the website of the Arizona State Legislature, the law:

States that the Legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people. Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:

• Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
• Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
• Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
• Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

States that this act cannot be construed to restrict or prohibit:

• Courses or classes for Native American pupils that are required to comply with federal law.
• The grouping of pupils according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.
• Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates this act.

That’s not the same as banning all ethnic studies courses.)

They also voted, which I think is pretty amazing and somewhat bizarre, to ban people who teach and have an accent from teaching English.

(Again, incorrect.  First, the law pertains to teachers that teach English to those students for whom English is their second language.  Meaning, teachers who are teaching the English language to non-English speaking students.  It requires that they not be “heavily” accented or speak ungrammatical English.  A requirement that one would think would be a prerequisite for those who are teaching English to non-native speakers.)

Again, not done anywhere else in the country.

(Not true, the actual law is based on a requirement in the No Child Left Behind Act which states that for a school to receive federal funds, students learning English must be instructed by teachers fluent in the language. Defining fluency is left to each state.)

This is not just a policy statement. They are actually sending out monitors to every classroom in the State of Arizona to listen to whether they have an accent or not.  If they have an accent, they will either have to remove that accent with training or they will not be able to teach English as a second language.

(At least he finally got it right that this only has to do with teachers who are teaching English as a second language, but he still left the audience with the mistaken belief that Arizona now has “accent police” rounding up any teachers that have an accent.)

Again I think this a pretty bizarre thing and it makes me wonder about where they’re headed. Now let me go back to what I said, then everyone else can listen to what I said, as opposed to what John and Ken (local radio hosts here in Southern California on KFI radio) said I said. What I said was that I lost relatives in the Holocaust, I lost my Aunt because she didn’t believe that some of these kind of things were going on, and she never believed them. And what I said was “how does this compare to what was going on in 1933 and earlier; the very subtle beginnings of what was going on in Nazi Germany. If you look at what was going on then, there are some similarities to what is going on in Arizona”.

(Re-read the exact quote in my introduction above, which I directly transcribed from the video of the City Council meeting, and see if you think this characterization of his original remarks is accurate.  I don’t.)

And I thought that the folks in Arizona needed to be called on it, rather than just continuing to do more and more things in this direction, more and more scapegoating.  We all have problems with illegal immigration issues.  California has… just as much as Arizona, maybe more so.  Texas … maybe more so.  How come these states are not doing this?  In fact, you have California complaining about what Arizona is doing.

(Well, no, the state is not complaining. Only the representatives in certain cities are complaining along with certain immigrant rights groups. In fact, the LA Times has a poll asking readers if they agree with the City Council’s actions. 96% of respondents believe the Council’s boycott is wrong.)

Because we don’t think this is the appropriate way to deal with this issue.  I don’t disagree that illegal immigration is a problem. I don’t think we can take the world’s population into the United States and take care of them. But I don’t think this is the answer.  I think this is a very dangerous approach.  And that was what I tried to say, that this is a very dangerous approach in my view and I think not calling Arizona on it, that would be the cowardly thing to do.  And taking the abuse that we get from talk radio I think is the right thing to do.

Ok, so this is what he had to say in the public comment part of the meeting.  Afterward, I spoke with him to express my displeasure at his Nazi Germany analogy.  I began by asking him if he had read the actual law.  He claims he did.  I then asked what specific part of the law he felt was akin to what the Nazis did.  Here’s the exchange:

Koretz: As I recall, and I did read it and I can’t tell you if I retained it all as I recall they changed the original concept to make it harder, but the original concept…

Koretz: And many people have and I’m not going to repeat them (referring to his remarks), having learned what I’ve learned from this experience.  And you’re certainly not the only one, or even the hundredth person that has observed that to me.  So I learned something.  But that was my gut, from the heart, response, and I probably wouldn’t say it again.  I mean even my friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center… even they took a shot at me – and maybe appropriately so.

Well at least he finally admitted that he shouldn’t have used the Nazi analogy – sort of.  Although considering his tortured explanation of his comments, I suspect that he might be more concerned about the political backlash that any real regret about saying what he said.  I was really hoping for some sort of apology, but apparently politicians really don’t like to directly admit that they were wrong.

Some final thoughts –

Clearly, Mr. Koretz feels the Arizona legislature and governor are wrong in their approach to the serious problems facing their state due to the influx of illegal immigrants.  He is certainly entitled to his opinion.  What he is not entitled to do is use the murder of millions of innocent people in order to score political points.  I, too, am a bit concerned with how this law will be implemented and the possible expansion of police powers.  But I would never equate Arizona’s actions with those of the Nazis.  Nor should anyone else. Nor should anyone equate the policies of President Obama and/or President Bush (either in words or pictures) with the actions of the Nazi Germany.  Anyone who does so should also be ashamed of themselves.  The Nazis committed genocide.  Let’s not confuse that with anything that doesn’t rise to a similar level of depravity.

I firmly believe that if you are a representative on the City Council of a major city, you have an obligation to get your facts right.  It’s likely that Mr. Koretz really believes the distortions that he’s heard about the laws being passed in Arizona.  But that’s no excuse.  It took me all of ten minutes to get the exact information about the laws and read them.  If had read them, he might not have found them so “amazing and bizarre”.  Certainly a council member with staff personnel at his disposal should be able to do at least this much.  Furthermore, if you’re going to vote to boycott another state because they passed a law you think is “dangerous”, you should be able to clearly and succinctly articulate to your constituents exactly what parts of the law you feel are objectionable.  When directly questioned on this, Mr. Koretz was unable to do so.

Finally, in all fairness, I do want to give credit where credit is due.  Mr. Koretz courteously listened to what I had to say although it was clearly an uncomfortable few minutes.  I never got the impression that he was trying to blow me off or cut our conversation short.  I do want to commend him for that.

Edit –

After this post appeared, I was interviewed on the John & Ken Show. Listen to the audio here.

May 20th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | 9 comments

House Passes Health Reform Bill

We’re screwed. More to come…

Since I can’t feed content from Facebook directly into the blog, I decided to post the contents of a spirited debate that was started when I posted the following:

Jay Beeber:   Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

Kathy Ann Wittes
We’re going to fight back.

Kathy Ann Wittes
If you want, come to the Hollywood Republicans dinner 1st Wed in April at the

Steve Humphreys
Oh and they weren’t when we illegally invaded another country and waterboarded suspected terrorists?

Cristina Nenadov
I am with Steve!

Tom Quinn
Selective memory is so convenient, don’t you think?

Jay Beeber
@Steve are you advocating the “two wrongs make a right” theory of government?

Steve Humphreys
Jay: I’m not advocating “two wrongs make a right”. Please explain to me what is so horribly wrong with a health care policy that will help people we both know? (ie: all of our friends who have no insurance) It’s not perfect but at least after trying to do something since the deperession, it’s a start.

Louisa Cilento
I’m one of those people who’s job doesn’t provide health insurance but that didn’t stop me from getting it on my own. I’ve have my individual plan my whole life. I hate when people think not being able to afford it and don’t want to afford it are the same thing! People who don’t want to pay now are still not going to want to pay anything…and won’t. How is that right?

Tom Quinn
Well said, Louisa!

Stephanie Witherspoon
Tell that to my friend who’s stuck in a horrible job because her pre-existing conditions have meant she wouldn’t be able to change insurance carriers because the premiums would be too high, if they’d take her at all. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But it’s a step in the right direction, and the first step that’s been taken in 100 YEARS. It’s easy for people who HAVE insurance to bemoan the healthcare bill. Try talking to some people that NEEDED this change.

Robyn Castellano Rubin
Any company’s group policy would have accepted her. But not to worry, we’ll pay for everyone now so why get any job at all?

Rafferty Fartengaten
You mean you thought you weren’t paying for everyone already?! Wow, how naive. I guess if you knew you wouldn’t have agreed to that. Why do you think costs are so high? Well apart from the fact that insurance, pharmaceutical & medical supply companies can charge whatever they want. Who is going to say no. If you want no regulation like good Capitalists then accept this- in the short to medium term at least the companies have no need to have a moral responsibility, only an economic drive. So accepting that, anyone who can’t afford it should either stay sick… or “fall by the supply/demand wayside” … & by that I mean die. If you can accept that as legitimate collateral damage then bring forth complete open markets. Too many goddamn people anyway

Rafferty Fartengaten
Answer me this riddlers. I just got a prescription filled for generic Augmenten. How much without insurance is it? And how much in Australia or the UK? The basic multifunction effective antibiotic- it’s $103 here. It’s about $25 in Australia. Explain that price variation & why can’t we then just get our meds from oneseas legally if we have ‘open markets’ now. I wonder why the pharmaceutical companies would lobby the GOVT not to have that happen?

Jay Beeber
We don’t have open markets now. Health care, insurance, etc. are some of the most highly regulated industries in the US. Due to government interference, the market is not free, open or competitive. And yes, we can’t buy from overseas because the pharmaceutical industry co-opted the power of government to forbid us from doing something we should have every right to do. I don’t know the Australian system all that well, but I suspect that the drug is cheaper over there either because it is somehow subsidized by the taxpayers and/or the cost of developing the drug, getting approved, and bringing it to market is less than it is here. Another possibility is that the AU gov’t has put in place price controls and people in other countries that don’t have such controls are paying the difference.

Julien Batelaan Humphreys
Right, if she could find a job with a company providing employee health coverage, which many don’t nowadays.
And, besides, we are paying for those that don’t have it now. We pay for them to wait in long lines at USC Medical Center and get treated like subhumans (like my friend, who definitely can’t afford own her policy, and had nowhere else to go recently when she badly cut her finger).
Jay, I doubt Jefferson is spinning in his grave. He was too busy doing his female slaves to care about the many people suffering in many different ways at the time. (And, no, I’m not a Jefferson hater. Admittedly, just making a snarky point.) Brings to mind all the politicans who have been so vehemently against something that is meant to help the quality of life of their fellow Americans. Hypocrites and purveyors of death and destruction (read: our current war). Spent too much money on that to support something altruistic and for the greater good.

Jay Beeber
@Julien If it really would help the quality of life overall, I might be inclined to support it, but I believe it will make health care more expensive overall and the taxpayers will have to keep shouldering more and more of the burden down the road. To understand why I believe that, you have to read the posts on my blog, there is not enough room to put all that here. Post over there if you disagree with the facts I list and my conclusions.

But the main point of my original post is that there is supposed to be limits on what the Federal Gov’t can and can’t do. I object to people being forced to buy a product from a private company (especially companies that have a track record like the health insurance industry). Never before has the Federal Gov’t extended itself this far and I think it’s a terrible precedent to set, no matter how well intentioned. And I’ll be posting about that in detail on my blog as well if I can steal a free moment away from answering comments on FB.

March 21st, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government, Health Care | 2 comments

Watch Your Mouth

As the State of California struggles with its worst financial crisis in decades, lawmakers in Sacramento have finally turned their attention to something really important – cussing. On Thursday, the assembly passed a Concurrent Resolution declaring the first week of March as “Cuss-Free Week”. Since it’s only a resolution and doesn’t carry the weight of law, no one would actually be required to comply. But it isn’t hard to envision a scenario where the two brilliant assembly members who sponsored this measure, Anthony Portantino and Cameron Smyth, would have imposed a fine if they could have.

The idea originated with then junior high student McKay Hatch who started a No Cussing Club at his school two years ago. Using the infallible logic of his 14 year old mind, Hatch surmised that cussing led to drug use, pornography and violence and the world would be just peachy keen if we could only curtail foul language. So, of course, our elected officials thought that a no cussing rule would be the perfect solution to many of our real, adult problems as well. Why else would they take time out of their busy schedules to concentrate their efforts on this pressing matter? It certainly is comforting to know that these statesmen are legitimately earning their $95,000 a year salaries.

Come to think of it, perhaps this is a good idea after all. Maybe if the legislature spent more time on these types of inane resolutions, they’d have less time to raise taxes and drive business out of the state through their job killing regulations. In fact, perhaps we do need more legislation thought up by pubescent teens. How about an “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue Week” where everything unpleasant you say to someone bounces off them and sticks to you. This might curtail gang violence. Or maybe we should implement a “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Week” during which, if you’re caught being untruthful, some official would actually douse you in gasoline and set you ablaze. Hey, it’s not any more ridiculous than many of the actual laws dreamed up in our halls of government.

 Loading ...

February 27th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | State Government | no comments

Lessons from the Massachusetts Special Election

To a large extent, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat was a referendum on the Democrats’ legislative ambitions in general and the current health care reform bill in particular. There are lessons to be learned from Scott Brown’s defeat of Martha Coakley to become the 41st Republican in the Senate, and one hopes the President and Congress are a quick study.

Contrary to what some liberals (oops, I mean “progressives”) like Michael Moore would wish to believe, the Democratic base did not desert those in power because they weren’t liberal enough. On the contrary, Brown won because independents and many moderate Democrats are unhappy with what appears to be this administration’s preference for big government solutions and the resulting increases in taxes and debt.

The health care bill is a good case in point. The President and the Democratically controlled Congress are attempting to foist upon the American people a trillion dollar health care plan, bought and paid for with backroom deals, and loaded with giveaways to the health care and health insurance industries. The President campaigned on “change”. But if this health care bill doesn’t prove that it’s still business as usual in Washington, nothing does.

So what should the President do? First, he should abandon the health care reform bill in its current form. Make no mistake, neither the House nor Senate bills address the real reasons for out of control heath care costs and would do little more than force everyone to purchase the health insurance industry’s flawed product; most likely at a higher cost. Pushing this catastrophically flawed bill through Congress, especially if the effort appears to involve any appearance of political gamesmanship, would be political suicide for the Democrats. Instead, the President and Congress should concentrate on only those reforms upon which most everyone can agree. It’s likely that with a scaled back, targeted approach to health care reform a few Republicans could be brought on board. (I’ll provide details in another post.) Not only would this be a huge win for the American people, but politically it would show that Obama is not only interested in bringing about change, he’s capable of change himself.

Second, the President should recognize that you can’t win elections without the backing of moderate and independent voters, and in Massachusetts they voted for a course correction. In his first year in office, Obama made the same mistake Bill Clinton made in 1992. Clinton beat Bush by appealing to independents and the so called “Reagan democrats”. But once in office, he pushed a classically liberal democratic agenda, the centerpiece of which was a big government health care reform bill. His approval ratings tanked and in the 1994 mid-term elections the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. But Clinton learned his lesson, and for the rest of that term he chose to govern from the center, rather than the liberal left. He handily won re-election and by all accounts left office a popular and successful president. (Except, perhaps, for that impeachment thing.)

President Obama is actually lucky in that he’s had some early warning signs of the impending political disaster headed his way. If last November’s Republican gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey didn’t wake him up, certainly what happened in Massachusetts should do the trick. If he’s smart, he’ll make it clear that he’s heard the will of the people. He’ll become more fiscally conservative and dial back on his ambitious agenda. He’ll try to truly usher in an era of bipartisanship by repudiating ideas that would lead to bigger government intrusion in our lives and he’ll take a more market oriented approach to the reforms he wants to implement. He’ll steer clear of job killing legislation like Cap and Trade and he’ll consider options for reducing the deficit, not increasing it.

Hopefully, President Obama has gotten the message sent by the voters of Massachusetts. If not, in the 2010 midterm elections, it will be, as Yogi Berra used to say, deja vu all over again.

January 20th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Election, Federal Government, Health Care | 4 comments

Thanks, 60 Minutes

It’s really gratifying when your analysis of an issue is validated on a respected national news show. On last night’s broadcast of 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft had this to say about why health care costs, especially for end of life care, are spiraling out of control:

In almost every business, cost-conscious customers and consumers help keep prices down. But not with health care. That’s because the customers and consumers who are receiving the care aren’t the ones paying the bill.

In fact, as Kroft reveals, 85 percent of health care bills are paid by the government or private insurers, not by patients themselves.

If this sounds familiar, you might be remembering that I basically made the same case in part two of my series on health care reform.

Unfortunately, the health care reform plans favored by the President and Congress will only make matters worse since they further insulate consumers from the cost of their medical care decisions by forcing more Americans to buy basic health insurance and covering more of the population under government paid for health care programs. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of making people more responsible for their decisions, the government is drafting legislation that will make people less responsible for the cost of their health care. As Dr. Elliot Fisher says at another point in this 60 Minutes segment, “In medicine we have turned the laws of supply and demand upside down”.

But don’t take my word for it, watch the 60 Minutes report here or read the transcript.

November 23rd, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Health Care | one comment

The Problem with Health Insurance

In part one of this series, we looked at the underlying reasons why healthcare is so expensive. We now focus on health insurance and the role it plays in causing our health care system to be more dysfunctional than it need be. We’ll see that the health insurance system which has evolved here in the United States both contributes to the high cost of medical care and creates additional impediments to providing health care to the population as a whole.

An Historical Perspective

In order to understand health insurance in the United States, it’s necessary to know a little about how the system evolved into what we have today. An excellent history can be found here and I encourage you to read it.

To summarize, the modern health insurance system has its roots in the 1920’s. Around this time, costs for medical care began to rise due to advances in technology and a subsequent increase in demand. In addition, increased requirements for physician licensure, education and the accreditation of medical schools restricted physician supply, putting upward pressure on the costs of physicians’ services. Continue reading “The Problem with Health Insurance”

November 2nd, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government, Health Care | 4 comments

Why is Health Care So Expensive?

This is a multipart series on health care reform. You may find it easier follow the discussion from the beginning. If you haven’t already read the introduction, you can find it here.

First, we need to define what we mean when we say that health care is too expensive. Do we mean that it costs too much to visit the doctor for a checkup, or an x-ray, or a flu vaccine? Do we mean that the average person can’t afford any type of health insurance? Do we mean that if you get cancer or some other major disease or need major surgery you can’t possibly afford to pay for all the medical bills you will incur? Or are we talking about the fact that the percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on heath care continues to increase every year and is much greater than what is spent in other Western countries?

When we break it down this way, we can see that in some cases, heath care is not “too expensive” for the average American. Most people, even those without health insurance, can afford to visit the doctor for minor or routine medical care. Sure, it might cost more than we’d like, but then again it cost me more than I’d have liked to replace the clutch in my Toyota, but I accept that as the normal cost of owning a car. If you take on the responsibility for anything, be it a car, or a house, a child, or your body, eventually you will have maintenance costs and you just have to plan for such things. Although the price of a doctor’s visit is actually more expensive in real dollars today by about a factor of two than it was in the early sixties (later we’ll discuss the reasons for that and the fact that it’s not an apples to apples comparison) the cost is still not out of reach for the average person. Likewise, while the cost of what we call health insurance (I’ll explain later why it isn’t really “insurance”) continues to increase, almost 85% of the U.S. population is able to obtain health insurance either on their own or through their employer. True, there are huge problems with health insurance that need to be addressed, but generally health insurance is still somewhat affordable for most people. Of course there is a small percentage of the population, the very poor, who can’t afford any health care or health insurance, though many of them can obtain some basic health care through existing Federal and State programs.
Continue reading “Why is Health Care So Expensive?”

September 30th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government, Health Care | 11 comments

Health Care Reform – Introduction

I considered avoiding this topic since there’s so many others writing and talking about it, but with all the misinformation on all sides of this issue, I feel I need to bring some sanity to the conversation. Health care reform is a complicated issue and there’s no way I can cover everything that needs to be said about it here at the Freedom Minute. Countless books, research papers, college courses and articles provide volumes of information for anyone who wants to look for it. Yet most people don’t look for it. They continue with their pre-conceived ideas, certain in the correctness of their “facts”. I’ll attempt to distill down the vast amount of information available and present it in a clear and concise manner, free as much as possible from ideology and rhetoric.

I’m going to divide this up into a bunch of different posts, partly because I don’t want to have to write it all at once and partly because dividing it up will make it easier to follow. Much of what follows is not simply my opinion, but rather the result of countless hours of research and investigation. I use mostly verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources and if I make an assertion, I’ll attempt to cite those sources so you can check them out yourself. Mostly I’ll be paraphrasing the relevant data, but when I quote another source directly, I’ll use italics so you know when that’s happening.
Continue reading “Health Care Reform – Introduction”

September 30th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government, Health Care, Libertarian Philosophy | no comments

Cash for Clunkers: Success or Failure?

As the “cash for clunkers” program came to a close this past week, government officials fell all over themselves declaring what a huge success the program has been. “This is one of the best economic news stories we’ve seen, and I’m proud we were able to give consumers a helping hand,” gushed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The positive spin is certainly not surprising considering the federal government just spent $3 billion of your tax dollars (or more correctly, added $3 billion to the national debt which will have to be paid back, with interest, from future tax revenues). And when they pony up that kind of coin, we’re certainly not going to hear anything coming from Washington other than the sound of our elected officials patting themselves on the back. True, if you’re one of the roughly 700,000 who were able to take advantage of the government’s largess, it’s likely you consider the program a success as well. And who’s to blame you. It’s not often you can get the government to reallocate $4500 of someone else’s money to you so you can buy a new car.

But those of us who understand that there is no free lunch realize that when the government engages in this kind of economic sleight of hand, there is always something on the other side of the equation, hidden from view, which balances out all the “benefits”. Plus, we’ll have to deal with all those pesky unintended consequences which always occur. So let’s take a look at the entirety of the cash for clunkers program and see whether or not it really was a good deal for America.
Continue reading “Cash for Clunkers: Success or Failure?”

August 29th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Federal Government, Libertarian Philosophy | 6 comments