The six oligarchies that control over ninety percent of the media are already in the process of rigging the election, by rigging the coverage again. They do this by only covering candidates they support and relying on the short memory of a large percentage of the public!
They're also involved in a continuous research project to find out which propaganda is most effective, and sometimes putting up some candidates that they don't expect to win to make the next corporate puppet seem progressive by comparison.
A few of the candidates they're trying to portray as Progressive this year seem to include Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker; however, there's an enormous amount of evidence well informed people checking alternative media outlets aren't going to forget. In Elizabeth Warren Makes Me Scream! and several additional articles I explained how Elizabeth Warren was taking advantage of political advisers from the same political establishment to help her create the image of a progressive politician, even though after a close look she's clearly not nearly as progressive as she pretends to be, although she did a much better job pretending for a while than Hillary Clinton and even Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
Their early and obsessive coverage of a poll that put Joe Biden — followed by Bernie Sanders, then Beto O’Rourke at the head of the pack shows how they use these polls to study how to manipulate the public and misrepresent them to the public, if you look carefully; and it was very similar to polls in 2016 which routinely put Mitt Romney at 22%, while one candidate after another took turns being the front runner. This caused Rachel Maddow to nick name Mitt Romney as "Mr. 22%" for a while, acting as if this was an incomprehensible mystery!
No one questioned why one candidate took the lead at any given time, then or now; however it may not be that hard to figure out, and if I can figure it out, so can they virtually guaranteeing they're studying how to manipulate voters, and doing it very successfully, except for a modest percentage that pays closer attention to media and sees through their manipulation, many of which supported Bernie Sanders of Jill Stein the last time around.
Before they took this poll, they provided an enormous amount of obsessive coverage for Beto O’Rourke enabling him to rise in the polls; and of course they've been providing obsessive coverage off and on for Joe Biden, presenting him as the leading contender several times, either in the 2016 or 2020 race, assuming he decides to run. Bernie Sanders didn't receive nearly as much coverage until he gained much more support from the grassroots, a lot of which went back decades in Vermont where he's known best rising gradually by keeping his promises and standing up for progressive issues consistently with few exceptions; although when he endorsed Hillary Clinton after losing the primary instead of joining the call to expose how the primaries were rigged, was one of the most notable exceptions.
If they did a study to see whether or not the coverage about the candidates that took turns surging to the top ahead of Mitt Romney in 2012, it's virtually guaranteed that they would find that they received much more coverage which the Republican Party base perceived as positive, even if progressives looked at the coverage and thought it made these candidates look awful.
When Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Cory Booker and many other candidates rose in the polls it was almost always, if not always, accompanied by massive amounts of positive media coverage, often with smaller amounts of critical coverage that quickly goes down the memory hole and as I pointed out in Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media they ensure that candidates that don't support the oligarchy agenda never get any media coverage and are never even mentioned in the polls, guaranteeing that they can't possibly get the name recognition needed to be viable; which is totally incomparable with a functioning democracy which has to hear from diverse points of view from all applicants for the job, not just ones supported by Wall Street.
If you watch closely, and keep track of history you might find that occasionally they get caught red handed telling Wall Street, or in the following case the Canadian government, that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign promises were just for the sake of the campaign as described by McChesney and Nichols:
Robert W McChesney and John Nichols "People Get Ready" 2016 p.136-7
When Obama was bidding for the Democratic presidency in 2008, he defined himself as a candidate of "hope and Change" in a number of ways. He thrilled labor audiences in primary states such as Wisconsin by denouncing policies that had saddled the United States with NAFTA, the permanent normalization of trade with China, and yawning trade deficits. Obama promised to scrap the secretive, “backroom-deal” negotiating style of “Fast Track” agreements that elbowed the Congress and the American people out of the process. He talked about renegotiating NAFTA to add safeguards for the environment and labor rights. If Canada and other trading partners rejected changes, Obama said he was open to exiting the agreements altogether. It seemed as if a new day was dawning when it came to the trade policy – or, at the very least, in the approach of a too-frequently-compromised Democratic Party.
Then came reports that Obama's senior economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, had quietly assured Canadians that the candidates statements were not to be believed—that his populist appeals in working-class towns battered by trade-related layoffs and factory closings “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” When the news broke, before the critical Ohio primary, Obama aides pointed political journalists towards reports that his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, had apparently had aides provide similar “not to worry” assurances to the Canadians. Reporters who had never bothered to connect the dots between trade policies, shuttered factories, and the righteous indignation of Ohio workers were lapping up the ‘he-said, she-said’ scrap. The controversy grew so intense that Obama had to address it. He told a Cleveland TV station: “I think it’s important for viewers to understand that [the claim that he was saying one thing to workers and another to Wall Street elites and foreign governments] was not true.” Complete article
When Obama was bidding for the Democratic presidency in 2008, he defined himself as a candidate of "hope and Change" in a number of ways. He thrilled labor audiences in primary states such as Wisconsin by denouncing policies that had saddled the United States with NAFTA, the permanent normalization of trade with China, and yawning trade deficits. Obama promised to scrap the secretive, “backroom-deal” negotiating style of “Fast Track” agreements that elbowed the Congress and the American people out of the process. He talked about renegotiating NAFTA to add safeguards for the environment and labor rights. If Canada and other trading partners rejected changes, Obama said he was open to exiting the agreements altogether. It seemed as if a new day was dawning when it came to the trade policy – or, at the very least, in the approach of a too-frequently-compromised Democratic Party.
Then came reports that Obama's senior economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, had quietly assured Canadians that the candidates statements were not to be believed—that his populist appeals in working-class towns battered by trade-related layoffs and factory closings “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” When the news broke, before the critical Ohio primary, Obama aides pointed political journalists towards reports that his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, had apparently had aides provide similar “not to worry” assurances to the Canadians. Reporters who had never bothered to connect the dots between trade policies, shuttered factories, and the righteous indignation of Ohio workers were lapping up the ‘he-said, she-said’ scrap. The controversy grew so intense that Obama had to address it. He told a Cleveland TV station: “I think it’s important for viewers to understand that [the claim that he was saying one thing to workers and another to Wall Street elites and foreign governments] was not true.” Complete article
This went to press while the general election was still going on; after Barack Obama won, he immediately appointed Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, and they both demonstrated, with their actions, that reassurances that they would keep promises to the public were blatant lies! They both relentlessly supported secret trade deals that often tried to make things worse, instead of what they promised during the elections, only backing off when they faced massive protests, but constantly trying to make end runs around any efforts to protect workers or the environment, or any of the progressive causes they pretended to support.
Telling the people one thing and Wall Street another, then keeping promises for Wall Street breaking them for the majority of the public is routine, unless on a few rare occasion there's massive amounts of protests, like when Barack Obama temporarily held up the Keystone Pipeline; but even then he approved part of it which wouldn't have been useful until the whole thing was complete, indicating his true intentions.
And of course, Hillary Clinton was caught saying, "you need both a public and a private position," in one of her paid speeches exposed by Wikileaks Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked 10/07/2016
There's little or no doubt that having "both a public and a private position," is standard operating procedure for any politician that wants establishment support, even if most of them don't get caught red handed saying it quite that way; anyone paying attention to politics knows that one politician after another flip flops on everything routinely making promises during the campaign then breaking them after elections while catering to corporate interests. In most cases even the traditional media reports on many of their broken promises; however, when they support a candidate they report it relatively quickly, then quickly forget it, while repeating positive propaganda over and over again.
This is one of the most basic principles of propaganda, a variation on "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it appears to!
The mainstream media charismatic demagogue after another, that may seem better than Trump; however the only reason that Trump was able to win in the first place is because they rigged the election for a candidate that the vast majority of the public didn't like, and it overwhelmingly looks like they'll do it again if we let them. If you check the record of one after another you'll find examples where they supported positions that most people are outraged by including massive spending on the military to continue wars based on lie, charter schools privatizing the education system for profit, harsh punishment for blue collar crimes while looking the other way at Wall Street crimes, and much more.
Beto O'Rourke is married to a billionaire family, took money from Oil company employee while pledging not to, his wife runs a Charter School, yet when it suits his political purposes he claims to oppose it. When David Sirota started examining his record he was smeared by many Democratic operatives on social media, clearly implying they though that only Republicans should have their records checked.
Both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker among other presidential candidates have openly supported Charter Schools, before hedging after realizing how disastrous they were; however they didn't back off until after it was proven to be a failure repeatedly and many more people learned about it, even though educators learned how disastrous they were at least ten years ago if not twenty or thirty.
Both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris took donations from Donald Trump and supported some of his political agenda, at least, before he became the enemy du jour. Kamala Harris also took these donations along with more from Steve Mnuchin while she was investigating them, and she declined to press charges against Mnuchin, doing little or nothing to stand up to Trump either. And during her campaign announcement speech she bragged about taking on banks despite this inconvenient fact. The mainstream media has even floated Eric Holders name as a viable candidate for president, although he worked for a law firm with banks involved in epidemic scandals before becoming Attorney General, and not prosecuting them, then returned to the same law firm, to work for the same banks he didn't prosecute, despite epidemic levels of fraud!
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris supported get tough on crime policies that escalated until we wound up with more people in jail, about two million than any other country; this is a higher rate than Russia when we demonized them because of their draconian immigration policies and for putting more people in jail for political reasons in the seventies. It's also more than two or three times the vast majority of developed countries in the world, and only Seychilles with a population of a hundred thousand matches it. They ignore some of the most effective research showing that improving education and social services does far more to reduce crime than prisons, and Kamala Harris was even bragging about this attitude ridiculing people chanting "build more schools and less jails," she says they haven't addressed the root causes of crime as if the chant is all there is to the subject. The truth is that there's much more research showing that building more schools and less jails does far more to reduce crime, although most of it can't fit on a bumper sticker or in a chant at a political rally.
It takes time to review this research showing that early child abuse leads to escalating violence, lack of education, income inequality, poverty and many other issues contribute to crime. It's not the people campaigning for "more schools less jails," that haven't done their research; when they're not chanting at rallies many of them are reading the actual research.
If Kamala Harris or Joe Biden wanted to read this research they could have done so decades ago before they helped create this massive prison expansion. And Biden also cleared the way for massive student loans to escalate to epidemic levels by driving up the cost of education and making them exempt from bankruptcy laws despite the fact that debts by the wealthy are still often forgiven allowing them to recover from bankruptcy.
Some of the most critical articles, or the ones making it clear that the political establishment are rigging the election are only reported in a low profile manner where few see them and they fall quickly down the memory hole like this story about how Kamala Harris met with Clinton inner circle in Hamptons 07/15/2017 presumably planning her possible presidential campaign, and possibly also discussing the methods of rallying people to support her with propaganda or other methods. I can't know for certain what went on behind close doors, in what they consider a proprietary meeting where they can discuss their strategy, which clearly involves studying how to manipulate the voters; however, I've seen enough of their pattern of behavior to recognize that a fraction of one percent is controlling large institutions creating massive amounts of propaganda ads and even paid people to organize rallies, although in most cases there are few people paid to actually attend or participate in protests against the opposition, as some conspiracy theorists claim.
It's far more likely that they pay a smaller number of organizers, some of whom have disclosed this publicly, although they don't disclose activities they claim are proprietary, at least not intentionally, although they're often leaked, most notably Wikileaks from the 2016 election, which help understand a pattern of behavior, when compared to the final results, which we can see in the form of ads or political rallies. Reviewing the lower profile news, especially if it's from more credible alternative media outlets, enables people to recognize these propaganda methods. Clearly political advisers have a significant say in how entire campaigns are run with large portions of them staged to convince the voters they're going to stand up for them, although once in office one candidate after another for Congress President, Governor or any other office routinely breaks one promise after another catering to their donors which they don't refer to as bribery, even though it has all the characteristics.
Bernie Sanders, is the closest thing there is to an exception, by far, with, perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, coming in second. Bernie Sanders rose from the grassroots decades ago and has been serving the interests of his constituents at the local level, staying in touch with them since then, only joining the Senate in 2006, where he got almost no attention by the mainstream media until his 2016 presidential campaign, unlike the senators they chose to be rising stars; but the vast majority of his constituents knew him much better and recognized that he had a record of keeping his promises and standing up for the people unlike typical politicians, including Howard Dean, who was once considered a sincere progressive from Vermont, but after his incompetent 2004 presidential campaign, he showed his true objectives, when catering to the Democratic establishment.
A recent article 02/08/2019 accurately says "Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison," including Bernie Sanders; although the things that they claim is his baggage is often based on their biased views supporting the political establishment that rigs elections. The biggest problems that I can see with Bernie Sanders is that instead of calling out the rigged primaries as I pointed out in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? which lists efforts from many states to rig the primaries, citing credible sources, he caved and endorsed Hillary Clinton, because Trump was so horrible that he wanted to prevent him from becoming president. However, if Hillary Clinton wasn't just as horrible, or worse, she was at best only slightly better, but did a better job pretending to representing the public than Trump, although not much.
In hind sight it's clear that he could have done far more good if he had called out the election rigging, and perhaps endorsed the Green Party; this might not have prevented them from rigging the general election so that either Trump or Clinton would win but it would have exposed how corrupt it was.then he went on and tried to patch the reputation of the Democratic Party back together again while trying to convince them to become more progressive at the same time. Clearly he failed at convincing the Democratic party to stand up to corruption; but he's still relentlessly supporting good causes and educating the ,majority of the public to them, so they might be better able to stand up to these corrupt politicians.
Looking the other way at election rigging or falling for the lesser of two evils clearly isn't working; the saying that "every time we accept the lesser of two evils they both get worse," clearly has been proven true in the 2016 election and is why Trump won in the fist place, and the Democrats have indicated that they're willing to do the same thing over again, although they're doing a slightly better job pretending to offer a less corrupt choice for 2020, although for people checking alternative media outlets, it's not a much better job.
Amazingly, unless they nominate Bernie Sanders, or perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, although that's far less likely, or provide media coverage for other reasonably good candidates, they're virtually guaranteeing that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils again which could be Trump's only chance, or if the Democratic nominee manages to beat him, he or she will only cave to corrupt interests, repeating the cycle of escalating evils running from both parties, and I hate to see who could be worse than Trump or Clinton, but some of these contenders could do just that!
Previously I pointed out that Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media are the only ones that might be as good as Bernie Sanders, and even if they don't appear to have a chance in the 2020 election, thanks to epidemic levels of corrupt media coverage, unless there's a mass awakening, which I don't see right now, we still need to do more to expose how they're rigging the system and helping these low profile candidates now could give honest candidates a better chance in future elections, especially if it's accompanied by more grassroots candidates in local offices.
The reason, as the New York Magazine pointed out, "Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison," is because the mainstream media only covers candidates that sell out to powerful interests so they can collect money for their campaigns. This is why, in addition to looking at all candidates I have been calling for financing an interview process controlled at the grassroots level like Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it, which does a far better job trying to get candidates to fill out a consistent job application, which is what I refer to as their questionnaire; although even that organization needs oms improvement.
Even if Bernie Sanders does manage to get elected he'll need support from more grassroots candidates in Congress to get anything done for progressive causes, which isn't to be confused with get things done for Wall Street corporations, which is what mainstream politicians mean by that phrase. And he'll also need a lot of grassroots pressure on the politicians that are doing a better job pretending to represent the public while trying to cater to Wall Street, to keep them from selling us out more than they think they can get away with, and if they don't run them out in 2022 or 2024 etc.
The mainstream media may be hoping that most of us in the United States of Amnesia will forget about the vast majority of the baggage that these corrupt politicians they're willing to cover have but there are clearly many people keeping a record or part of it. If it helps I'll post a list here of a fraction of these low profile stories, possibly adding more or in future articles, and invite more people, especially those with a larger following than me, to post their own lists publicly if it helps educate people that the grassroots level:
Beto O’Rourke might have an oil money problem 12/19/2018
Amy Sanders O’Rourke, Beto O’Rourke’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 01/13/2019 Her Father Sold a Real Estate Business to GE for at Least $2 Billion. Amy’s the director of education development for La Fe Community Development Corporation. She’s also the executive director of the La Fe Preparatory charter school, which she helped start.
Beto O’Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals 12/20/2018
Beto O'Rourke is the new Obama. And that's the last thing we need 12/22/2018
The Factual Reporting About Beto by David Sirota That Stirred Epic Freakout 01/04/2019
Cory Booker, School Choice Fan and Ex-DeVos Ally, Is Running for President 02/01/2019
Cory Booker Has a School Choice Problem 02/08/2019 Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison, from Joe Biden’s crime-bill sponsorship to Elizabeth Warren’s Native American association to the various things Bernie Sanders said and did in many decades of being a proud socialist. In national terms, New Jersey senator Cory Booker is still a fresh face with an unclear identity. But for progressives and labor activists with long memories, he’s got some issues, too.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker touts scholarship bill that would allow some students to attend private school 05/05/2012
New York Magazine: Cory Booker Has a School Choice Problem 02/09/2019
Eric Blanc: Cory Booker Hates Public Schools 02/10/2019
The Ugly Truth About Cory Booker, New Jersey’s Golden Boy 10/20/2014
Kamala Harris: I’ve Smoked Pot, It Gives A Lot Of People Joy 02/11/2019
Kamala Harris Talked Tough on Crime to Win Her First Race 02/07/2019
Still can’t get over this: Kamala Harris: More jails for the people! 02/01/2019
Tulsi Gabbard Claims Anti-War Credentials After Accepting Over $100,000 From Arms Dealers 01/31/2019
Cory Booker and GOP Kill Drug Importation Measure 01/12/2017
There Are Only Two Democratic Hopefuls Wall Street Fears 01/29/2019 What do Democratic officials as diverse as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Joe Biden have in common? .... “It can’t be Warren, and it can’t be Sanders,” claims one anonymous CEO of a major bank. “It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”
Kamala’s dilemma: Democrats fidgeting already about possible third-party bids 01/30/2019
Kamala Harris laughed about jailing parents over truancy. But it's not funny 01/31/2019
Kamala Harris is open to multiple paths to 'Medicare-for-all' 01/30/2019
A Problem for Kamala Harris: Can a Prosecutor Become President in the Age of Black Lives Matter? 01/20/2019
Kamala Harris 2020: Chains You Can Believe In by Teodrose Fikre 01/23/2019
If you pick Steve Mnuchin as you're running mate I'm sure he'll help finance your campaign; but there's no fooking way I'll help! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ … 01/21/2019 Blocked or muted??
Kamala sold us out plenty of times before taking bribes disguised as donations from Mnuchin & Trump now we're supposed to believe she'll stand up to them? I don't think so! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ … 01/21/2019 Blocked or muted??
The Two Faces of Kamala Harris 08/10/2017
Kamala Harris Dons Progressive Mantle in Public, Strips it Off in Private as She Courts Israel Lobby 01/21/2019 Repugnantly treacherous establishment Democrats are already throwing their hats into the ring for the horse race in 2020. Kamala Harris, Corey Booker—two ambitious and opportunistic wannabes—are trying to run on the Obama Brand. Elizabeth Warren is likely to dispute the prize, too, striking a faux anti-Wall Street pose. And there are others. All of them will run mostly on identity politics. And nothing will change, except for the worse. Tell these phonies to get lost.
Dems' rising star meets with Clinton inner circle in Hamptons 07/15/2017 ... He was also listed as one of the top “bundlers” for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, having raised $3 million.
Kamala Harris tweets fundraiser for Stacey Abrams, but Harris may keep half 11/08/2018 But some were critical when they noted that by default, 50 percent of donations go to Harris herself, unless donors opt to adjust the ratio. "NOTE: Your contribution will be divided evenly between Stacey Abrams and Kamala Harris," the text above the donation buttons reads. "Click here to allocate amounts differently."
Wall Street executives are hearing from Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and other Democrats as they gauge interest in possible 2020 presidential campaigns 01/08/2019
Donald Trump Has Often Donated to Prosecutors Investigating His Business 10/05/2016
Open Secrets: Kamala D Harris WarnerMedia Group $127,975 21st Century Fox $90,958
Kamala Harris Fails to Explain Why She Didn’t Prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s Bank 01/05/2017
Harris: Progressives shouldn't apply purity tests to Dems 03/09/2017
Democratic donors still think they can anoint rising stars, including Kamala Harris, in the Hamptons 07/24/2017
The Kamala Harris Controversy Reveals the Erasure of Leftist Women by Pseudo-Woke Liberals 08/10/2017
Who is Democratic Senator Kamala Harris? 01/22/2019
Corporate Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear 01/14/2019 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and former vice president Joe Biden.
As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans 01/11/2019
Cory Booker: What Educators and Parents Need to Know 02/06/2019
Cory Booker Opens His Presidential Campaign in New Orleans 01/20/2019
Amy Sanders O’Rourke, Beto O’Rourke’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 2. Her Father Sold a Real Estate Business to GE for at Least $2 Billion
Beto O'Rourke lands big Obama fundraiser -- but many elite donors are playing the field in 2020 12/07/2018
Joe Biden Has A Serious Drug Policy Problem 12/21/2016
SWEEPING ANTI-CRIME BILL PASSES EASILY IN SENATE 07/12/1991 Eager to address voters' anxiety over crime in advance of next year's elections, senators had spent nearly three weeks on the crime bill in what amounted to a political bidding war between Democrats and Republicans over who could demonstrate the greater toughness toward criminals. The partisan bickering continued right up to the final roll call, as Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) claimed the bill as a victory for Bush, prompting counterclaims from Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) that it was largely a Democratic achievement.
Joe Biden Backed Bills To Make It Harder For Americans To Reduce Their Student Debt 09/15/2015 As a senator from Delaware -- a corporate tax haven where the financial industry is one of the state’s largest employers -- Biden was one of the key proponents of the 2005 legislation that is now bearing down on students like Ryan. That bill effectively prevents the $150 billion worth of private student debt from being discharged, rescheduled or renegotiated as other debt can be in bankruptcy court.
Joe Biden embraced segregation in 1975, claiming it was a matter of 'black pride' 01/31/2019
Liz Warren’s Other “American Indian” Problem 02/08/2019
Elizabeth Warren’s Presidential Bid Leaves Questions to Be Answered 01/03/2019
Freedom Rider: Elizabeth Warren and the Trap for Black Voters 01/0/2019 The early primaries located in southern states will play a huge role in determining the eventual nominee. In the South, Democrat means black and those voters have every right to ask hard questions and make clear demands. Going along gave us nothing but NAFTA, the loss of the right to public assistance, bank bailouts, a right wing health care scheme and finally a Republican in the White House who embodied all of our worst fears.
The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real 10/25/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment