Commentary Magazine


Posts For: September 19, 2007

Russia’s Question

Yesterday, Moscow took one more step away from the West when it announced that it would not support tougher sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its efforts to enrich uranium. The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to discuss implementing a third set of coercive measures against Tehran. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country wants to give the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, additional time to obtain cooperation from Iran pursuant to a deal arranged last month. On Friday, China announced its desire to see more negotiations with the Iranians, thereby supporting the Kremlin.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, at the conclusion of his meeting with Lavrov in Moscow, said yesterday that, should the Security Council fail to impose new measures, the European Union should create a sanctions regime similar to America’s. That set off Lavrov: “If we decided to act collectively on the basis of consensual decisions in the U.N. Security Council, what good does it do to take unilateral decisions?”

Read More

Yesterday, Moscow took one more step away from the West when it announced that it would not support tougher sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its efforts to enrich uranium. The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to discuss implementing a third set of coercive measures against Tehran. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country wants to give the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, additional time to obtain cooperation from Iran pursuant to a deal arranged last month. On Friday, China announced its desire to see more negotiations with the Iranians, thereby supporting the Kremlin.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, at the conclusion of his meeting with Lavrov in Moscow, said yesterday that, should the Security Council fail to impose new measures, the European Union should create a sanctions regime similar to America’s. That set off Lavrov: “If we decided to act collectively on the basis of consensual decisions in the U.N. Security Council, what good does it do to take unilateral decisions?”

The assumption implicit in Lavrov’s question is that the world’s great powers, acting together, can solve the world’s great problems. It is the basis of Bush administration policy. It is the notion that all of us want to believe. It is, unfortunately, no longer true—if it ever was.

Why? On Monday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, trying to forestall the talk of war over Iran, asked the West to remember the lessons of Iraq. I do, and here they are in ascending order of importance: the American military can destroy almost any adversary, democracy cannot be imposed by force, and the concept of collective security no longer works. Before President Bush talked about democracy in Iraq, even before he mentioned weapons of mass destruction, American diplomats discussed the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions against Saddam’s regime.

Russia and China this week have made it clear they will side with Iran until the theocrats announce they have the bomb—all the while saying they are defending the concept of joint action. As Thomas Friedman says, we are entering the post-post-cold-war period. And in that period the West has no choice but to realize that the world’s authoritarian nations are banding together, and Russia and China are undermining the concept of collective security. Whether we like it or not, we are now engaged in a series of global struggles, with neither Beijing nor Moscow on our side.

Read Less

A Hostile Entity Indeed

Today, Israel’s security cabinet endorsed the recommendations of its Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, and designated Gaza “a hostile entity.” Israel will now cut the fuel and power—though not water—supplies to the Strip.

Hamas has angrily labeled the decision “a declaration of war.” This may be so. But given that Hamas’s charter denies Israel’s right to exist; that Hamas rejected the Oslo accords; that it has been trying to bomb Israel out of existence through suicide attacks since 1994; that it has refused to renounce violence even after countless overtures by the international community and the Palestinian Authority; that it insists “armed resistance” is a legitimate means to fight the “Israeli occupation” of, well, Israel; and that, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, a barrage of Kassam rockets have been falling daily from Gaza on Israel’s southern areas—given all these factors, should Hamas really be surprised or outraged that Israel finally has taken notice of Hamas’s declaration of war and responded in kind?

Today, Israel’s security cabinet endorsed the recommendations of its Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, and designated Gaza “a hostile entity.” Israel will now cut the fuel and power—though not water—supplies to the Strip.

Hamas has angrily labeled the decision “a declaration of war.” This may be so. But given that Hamas’s charter denies Israel’s right to exist; that Hamas rejected the Oslo accords; that it has been trying to bomb Israel out of existence through suicide attacks since 1994; that it has refused to renounce violence even after countless overtures by the international community and the Palestinian Authority; that it insists “armed resistance” is a legitimate means to fight the “Israeli occupation” of, well, Israel; and that, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, a barrage of Kassam rockets have been falling daily from Gaza on Israel’s southern areas—given all these factors, should Hamas really be surprised or outraged that Israel finally has taken notice of Hamas’s declaration of war and responded in kind?

Read Less

Ugly Alliance

Democrats are said to be keen about “connecting the dots”—so let’s see if we can connect a few for them.

Dot Number One: Last week, MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in the New York Times directed at David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, accusing him of betraying America and “cooking the books”—and many leading Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t condemn it (to their credit a few, like John Kerry, did).

Dot Number Two: In December 2004, the executive director of MoveOn.org’s PAC said of the Democratic Party: “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Dot Number Three: According to a story in last May’s New York Times, “Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups [including MoveOn.org] gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate. . . . “The principle under which we’ve been operating is more like a political campaign,” Mr. Matzzie [Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org’s Washington director] said. “The central strategy is creating that toxic environment for people who want to continue this [Iraq] debacle.”

Dot Number Four: We read this in The Politico today:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) traveled to New York on Monday and huddled with leaders of the anti-Iraq-war movement, his latest effort to reassure this increasingly restive group that Democrats are doing everything they can to end the war. . . . Impatience rising, some activists are urging that Democrats who are not aggressive enough in confronting Bush on Iraq themselves be challenged with primary opponents or third-party candidacies in 2008. “People are feeling like we invested all this time and money in changing the political equation and where has it led us?” said former congressman Tom Andrews, leader of Win Without War. . . . Andrews, antiwar activist Tom Hayden, Code Pink’s Dana Balicki, and Leslie Cagan, director of United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of antiwar groups, said there is open talk of third-party challenges from the Left . . .

Dot Number Five: This morning we read from the Associated Press:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so. The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several antiwar proposals, including one by Senator Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev. “There (are) no goals. It’s all definite time lines,” he told reporters of the planned legislation. . . . Democrats are in a box on the Iraq war debate, lacking the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home, but tied to a support base that wants nothing less.

Let’s now connect these dots and draw some conclusions from them, shall we?

MoveOn.org—an angry, far-left, antiwar group—views the modern Democratic Party and its leadership as its cat’s-paw, and there’s little reason to dispute this judgment. The problem for many Democrats is that a Great Unmasking is taking place. For one thing, it’s difficult to say they oppose the war but support the troops when they train their fire on the commanding general of the troops, whose main transgression appears to be that he’s helping America succeed in an epic struggle against radical Islam.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party’s aversion to any (authentic) good news from Iraq, when combined with their effort to accelerate a premature withdrawal from that traumatized country, would lead to an American defeat and a victory for jihadism. This would be reckless—and it would reinforce the view among many Americans that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted on national security matters.

When MoveOn.org says jump, the Democratic Party asks, “How high?” There should be, and eventually there will be, a political price to pay for this ugly alliance.

Democrats are said to be keen about “connecting the dots”—so let’s see if we can connect a few for them.

Dot Number One: Last week, MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in the New York Times directed at David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, accusing him of betraying America and “cooking the books”—and many leading Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t condemn it (to their credit a few, like John Kerry, did).

Dot Number Two: In December 2004, the executive director of MoveOn.org’s PAC said of the Democratic Party: “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Dot Number Three: According to a story in last May’s New York Times, “Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups [including MoveOn.org] gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate. . . . “The principle under which we’ve been operating is more like a political campaign,” Mr. Matzzie [Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org’s Washington director] said. “The central strategy is creating that toxic environment for people who want to continue this [Iraq] debacle.”

Dot Number Four: We read this in The Politico today:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) traveled to New York on Monday and huddled with leaders of the anti-Iraq-war movement, his latest effort to reassure this increasingly restive group that Democrats are doing everything they can to end the war. . . . Impatience rising, some activists are urging that Democrats who are not aggressive enough in confronting Bush on Iraq themselves be challenged with primary opponents or third-party candidacies in 2008. “People are feeling like we invested all this time and money in changing the political equation and where has it led us?” said former congressman Tom Andrews, leader of Win Without War. . . . Andrews, antiwar activist Tom Hayden, Code Pink’s Dana Balicki, and Leslie Cagan, director of United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of antiwar groups, said there is open talk of third-party challenges from the Left . . .

Dot Number Five: This morning we read from the Associated Press:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so. The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several antiwar proposals, including one by Senator Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev. “There (are) no goals. It’s all definite time lines,” he told reporters of the planned legislation. . . . Democrats are in a box on the Iraq war debate, lacking the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home, but tied to a support base that wants nothing less.

Let’s now connect these dots and draw some conclusions from them, shall we?

MoveOn.org—an angry, far-left, antiwar group—views the modern Democratic Party and its leadership as its cat’s-paw, and there’s little reason to dispute this judgment. The problem for many Democrats is that a Great Unmasking is taking place. For one thing, it’s difficult to say they oppose the war but support the troops when they train their fire on the commanding general of the troops, whose main transgression appears to be that he’s helping America succeed in an epic struggle against radical Islam.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party’s aversion to any (authentic) good news from Iraq, when combined with their effort to accelerate a premature withdrawal from that traumatized country, would lead to an American defeat and a victory for jihadism. This would be reckless—and it would reinforce the view among many Americans that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted on national security matters.

When MoveOn.org says jump, the Democratic Party asks, “How high?” There should be, and eventually there will be, a political price to pay for this ugly alliance.

Read Less

Migration Myths and Facts

In recent weeks it has been commonplace to hear that the bottom-up success that coalition forces have been enjoying in Iraq is leading to a “soft partition” of the country along the lines envisioned by the likes of Joe Biden: a Kurdish north, a Sunni west, and a Shiite south. Some have even suggested that we should stand aside and let this ethnic sorting out occur, especially in Baghdad.

The reality is far messier and does not comport with the schemes hatched in Washington conference rooms.

The New York Times reports on the findings of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, which has been studying migration patterns. The Red Crescent finds that while “Sunnis generally have been moving north and west, Shiites south, and Christians to the far north,” the picture is far murkier in the populous center of the country. The Times states that

the new figures show that the migration is not neatly dividing Baghdad along the Tigris, separating Sunnis who live predominantly on the west bank from Shiites, who live predominantly on the east. Instead, some Sunnis are moving to the predominantly Shiite side of the river, into neighborhoods that are relatively secular, mixed, and where services are better, according to Red Crescent staff.

In short, while sectarian polarization has been increasing in recent years, it is not the case that all Iraqis implacably hate all those who belong to a different sect. In fact, the Times says, “the patterns suggest that despite the ethnic and sectarian animosity that has gripped the country, at least some Iraqis would rather continue to live in mixed communities.”

My bet is that many more would make that choice if they felt secure living alongside neighbors of different backgrounds, as they did only a few years ago. That is what the surge is designed to accomplish.

In recent weeks it has been commonplace to hear that the bottom-up success that coalition forces have been enjoying in Iraq is leading to a “soft partition” of the country along the lines envisioned by the likes of Joe Biden: a Kurdish north, a Sunni west, and a Shiite south. Some have even suggested that we should stand aside and let this ethnic sorting out occur, especially in Baghdad.

The reality is far messier and does not comport with the schemes hatched in Washington conference rooms.

The New York Times reports on the findings of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, which has been studying migration patterns. The Red Crescent finds that while “Sunnis generally have been moving north and west, Shiites south, and Christians to the far north,” the picture is far murkier in the populous center of the country. The Times states that

the new figures show that the migration is not neatly dividing Baghdad along the Tigris, separating Sunnis who live predominantly on the west bank from Shiites, who live predominantly on the east. Instead, some Sunnis are moving to the predominantly Shiite side of the river, into neighborhoods that are relatively secular, mixed, and where services are better, according to Red Crescent staff.

In short, while sectarian polarization has been increasing in recent years, it is not the case that all Iraqis implacably hate all those who belong to a different sect. In fact, the Times says, “the patterns suggest that despite the ethnic and sectarian animosity that has gripped the country, at least some Iraqis would rather continue to live in mixed communities.”

My bet is that many more would make that choice if they felt secure living alongside neighbors of different backgrounds, as they did only a few years ago. That is what the surge is designed to accomplish.

Read Less

Frolicking at Auschwitz

Today, the New York Times makes available photographs obtained by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum from the other side of Auschwitz: not the familiar images of starving prisoners, but new shots of vivacious German officers. It churns the stomach to envision the high life these Germans enjoyed while participating in the murder of over one million people.

Karl Höcker, the adjutant to the camp commandant, compiled the scrapbook. The photos, which include the first authenticated images of the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele at the camp, feature Höcker lighting a towering Christmas tree and a singalong of SS men at their Alpine retreat. But perhaps the most shocking depicts members of the SS female auxiliary poised on a wooden fence eating fresh blueberries.

The women, thirteen of them, are lined up in skirts with their legs showing: they look like the Rockettes in summertime, when, months from their Radio City show, they might have indulged their appetites and gained a few pounds. (Do wurst and kartoffel provide suitable energy for genocide?) As revolting and disturbing as these images are, they need to be seen.

The Times reports that the Holocaust Museum in Washington has no plans, as of now, to exhibit the photos, but you can view them online here.

Today, the New York Times makes available photographs obtained by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum from the other side of Auschwitz: not the familiar images of starving prisoners, but new shots of vivacious German officers. It churns the stomach to envision the high life these Germans enjoyed while participating in the murder of over one million people.

Karl Höcker, the adjutant to the camp commandant, compiled the scrapbook. The photos, which include the first authenticated images of the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele at the camp, feature Höcker lighting a towering Christmas tree and a singalong of SS men at their Alpine retreat. But perhaps the most shocking depicts members of the SS female auxiliary poised on a wooden fence eating fresh blueberries.

The women, thirteen of them, are lined up in skirts with their legs showing: they look like the Rockettes in summertime, when, months from their Radio City show, they might have indulged their appetites and gained a few pounds. (Do wurst and kartoffel provide suitable energy for genocide?) As revolting and disturbing as these images are, they need to be seen.

The Times reports that the Holocaust Museum in Washington has no plans, as of now, to exhibit the photos, but you can view them online here.

Read Less

Greenwald and Vilks

When I postulated in a short post last week that comedienne Kathy Griffin would have faced a more dire fate than being hectored by the Catholic Leauge’s Bill Donohue had she made a joke about Muhammad rather than Jesus, Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald succumbed to his usual hysterics, running off a thousand-plus word screed grouping me alongside “right-wing warmongers” like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Mark Steyn, and calling my fears fantasies.

Not to needle the ever-excitable Greenwald, but in related news about the over-exaggerated Muslim threat that only exists in the minds of “right-wing warmongers,” the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, has called for the death of Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks for—what else?—drawing a picture of Muhammad. Demonstrating a real entrepreneurial spirit, al-Baghdadi offered a “50 per cent bonus if Mr. Vilks was ‘slaughtered like a lamb’ by having his throat cut.”

Swedish police have placed Vilks under their protection. According to the Times (London), a spokesperson for the Swedish phone company Ericsson says that it has instructed its employees “to keep a low profile in Muslim countries and to take extra care in deciding where to go or park their cars.” The feckless Swedish ambassador to Saudi Arabia met with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, offering his “deepest apologies for the controversy created by the publishing of the hurtful depiction.” I must have imagined this, too, right?

Fortunately, Mr. Vilks has responded to the bounty placed on his head with good humor, telling the Times, “I suppose that this makes my art project a bit more serious. It is also good to know how much one is worth.” Greenwald might want to consider emulating Lars Vilks’s sense of humor. All those tantrums have to be taxing.

When I postulated in a short post last week that comedienne Kathy Griffin would have faced a more dire fate than being hectored by the Catholic Leauge’s Bill Donohue had she made a joke about Muhammad rather than Jesus, Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald succumbed to his usual hysterics, running off a thousand-plus word screed grouping me alongside “right-wing warmongers” like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Mark Steyn, and calling my fears fantasies.

Not to needle the ever-excitable Greenwald, but in related news about the over-exaggerated Muslim threat that only exists in the minds of “right-wing warmongers,” the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, has called for the death of Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks for—what else?—drawing a picture of Muhammad. Demonstrating a real entrepreneurial spirit, al-Baghdadi offered a “50 per cent bonus if Mr. Vilks was ‘slaughtered like a lamb’ by having his throat cut.”

Swedish police have placed Vilks under their protection. According to the Times (London), a spokesperson for the Swedish phone company Ericsson says that it has instructed its employees “to keep a low profile in Muslim countries and to take extra care in deciding where to go or park their cars.” The feckless Swedish ambassador to Saudi Arabia met with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, offering his “deepest apologies for the controversy created by the publishing of the hurtful depiction.” I must have imagined this, too, right?

Fortunately, Mr. Vilks has responded to the bounty placed on his head with good humor, telling the Times, “I suppose that this makes my art project a bit more serious. It is also good to know how much one is worth.” Greenwald might want to consider emulating Lars Vilks’s sense of humor. All those tantrums have to be taxing.

Read Less

Bookshelf

• The similarities of the biographer’s craft and the novelist’s art have often been remarked upon, and several writers of fiction, Henry James foremost among them, have succeeded in making hay out of the activities of the “publishing scoundrels” so vividly sketched in The Aspern Papers. Kate Christensen’s fourth novel, The Great Man (Doubleday, 305 pp., $23.95), is not primarily about the pair of dueling biographers who set its plot in motion, but speaking as one who has written two biographies and is athwart a third, I can tell you that its author knows far more than she should about the psychology of people like me.

The title character of The Great Man, a much-admired but not quite great painter named Oscar Feldman, is dead when Christensen’s book gets under way. Instead of meeting Feldman, we see him through the eyes of two very different men who, initially unaware of one another, are in the process of interviewing the women in his life. Before long, though, it becomes clear that Feldman’s women—his wife, his mistress, his sister, his twin daughters—are Christensen’s real subjects. All, it seems, continue to be held in thrall by his larger-than-life personality, and The Great Man is at bottom the story of how each one manages to break free of Feldman and start living her own life.

Read More

• The similarities of the biographer’s craft and the novelist’s art have often been remarked upon, and several writers of fiction, Henry James foremost among them, have succeeded in making hay out of the activities of the “publishing scoundrels” so vividly sketched in The Aspern Papers. Kate Christensen’s fourth novel, The Great Man (Doubleday, 305 pp., $23.95), is not primarily about the pair of dueling biographers who set its plot in motion, but speaking as one who has written two biographies and is athwart a third, I can tell you that its author knows far more than she should about the psychology of people like me.

The title character of The Great Man, a much-admired but not quite great painter named Oscar Feldman, is dead when Christensen’s book gets under way. Instead of meeting Feldman, we see him through the eyes of two very different men who, initially unaware of one another, are in the process of interviewing the women in his life. Before long, though, it becomes clear that Feldman’s women—his wife, his mistress, his sister, his twin daughters—are Christensen’s real subjects. All, it seems, continue to be held in thrall by his larger-than-life personality, and The Great Man is at bottom the story of how each one manages to break free of Feldman and start living her own life.

Summed up so baldly, The Great Man sounds like a feminist tract, but in fact it is a well-managed piece of plot-juggling in which Christensen detonates genuinely unexpected surprises at satisfyingly regular intervals, in between writing with impressive intelligence about the art world and its inhabitants (“Maxine’s paintings were intended to punish the viewer for failing to see what they were about”). She is, like Angus Wilson, the sort of novelist who is at pains to let you know that she has everybody’s number, but such knowingness is a venial sin in so smart a writer, especially when it is mixed, as it is here, with real sympathy.

Christensen has acquired a well-deserved reputation as the author of sharp-witted novels in which she frequently tries her hand at literary impersonation. In Jeremy Thrane (2001), for instance, she pulls off the tricky feat of writing in the voice of a gay man. In The Great Man, by contrast, most of the principal characters are women in their seventies and eighties, a difficult age for a youngish author to comprehend, and one that Christensen portrays with what looks to a middle-aged reader like complete understanding:

“Listen, Henry,” she said. “Oscar was my beloved mate. I never had any other or wanted one. But after forty-odd years, the word beloved takes on some fairly perverse complexities. You’re probably too young still to know. To be truly loved is to be . . . known, of course, which also implies despised and even hated.”

Less successful are the bookends of pastiche that frame The Great Man, a New York Times obituary of Oscar Feldman and a Times review of the two biographies of Feldman, whose writing sets the novel in motion. Christensen has no gift for parody, and neither piece sounds remotely believable. (Among other implausible things, the real-life Hilton Kramer would never have described any painter as “ballsy almost to the point of testicular obnoxiousness.”) A good editor would have encouraged Christensen to lop off these superfluous excrescences, and might also have nudged her to pare away some of the excesses in her rich prose style. Still, these are surface flaws in a novel good enough that I was forced by dint of sheer excitement to read it from cover to cover in two lengthy sittings. I don’t follow the work of very many younger novelists, but from now on I plan to keep up with Kate Christensen.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.