What We’re Reading Now
Justice Denied & Served
July 23, 2024
With Joe Biden having pulled out of the 2024 presidential race only two days ago (it already feels like a month has gone by), the seismic shift of attention to VP Kamala Harris is still being felt across the country. But it’s worth pointing out that nothing in the rapidly evolving, presidential news cycle will change the reality that, however MAGA Republicans want to gaslight Democrats or spin it from their side of the campaign, Donald Trump is still a convicted felon running for president. And the right wing majority of the Supreme Court and other Trump-appointed judges are his supreme enablers.
A couple of recent readings work as excellent reminders of this state of affairs.
In a July 16 opinion piece in The Guardian co-authored by Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut, the pair of legal scholars weigh in on what they refer to as “a sledgehammer on the rule of law”: namely the Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon’s tossing out the ex-president’s prosecution for stealing national security documents after losing his re-election bid.
To make matters worse, as Tribe and Aftergut write of special counsel Jack Smith’s role, Cannon “has toppled the whole case by shredding the long-established structure through which successive attorneys general have appointed special counsel to investigate and prosecute crimes against the nation too sensitive for the justice department to handle in the ordinary course.”
“Cannon’s opinion,” they conclude, “makes a mockery of justice under law.”
As a companion piece to that article, Ryan Cooper’s May 31 story in The American Prospect—a DC-based progressive public policy magazine where he is managing editor—offers a more optimistic take on the justice being served to Donald Trump, however limited in might be.
In “Alvin Bragg Was Right, His Critics Were Wrong,” Cooper reports on the challenges faced by his titular subject, the Manhattan District Attorney, to indict Trump for the Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels hush money case dating back to 2016. Describing the “wave of skepticism from liberal commentators, legal experts, and Trump critics” and “anxious liberal hand-wringing” over the legitimacy of Bragg’s case, The Prospect editor comes to the conclusion that the legal argument in the case was straightforward.
“It turned out that the Bragg case was solid,” Cooper writes. “After just a couple days of deliberation, the jury delivered total victory: guilty on every one of 34 felony counts.” And that, he adds, is how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.
Emphasis on criminal.
“This election,” Tribe and Aftergut forcefully point out in their Guardian article, “our constitutional republic is at stake, along with its first principle: no one, including the most powerful, is above the law. Only We, the People, can preserve the freedom and security our laws safeguard.”
Read The Guardian article by Laurence Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
Read The American Prospect article by Ryan Cooper
If you’re interested in the archives of What We’re Reading this link will take you there
The Quiet Part, Out Loud
July 5, 2024
If our recommended readings in the past weeks and months have appeared focused on The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, it’s probably because the best way to confront something that scares the hell out of you is to deal with it head-on. In this spirit, we’ve sought out, and discovered no shortage of, investigative journalism that interrogates this monstrously bad idea masquerading as “policy agenda,” conceived of by the right wing think tank that brought America such winners of policy positions as climate change denial, voter fraud alarmism, and LGBT rights opposition.
It’s been one thing to have shared reporting from center-left and progressive-leaning sources—who, as we’ve seen by now, have engaged in an informed and analytical dismantling of the Heritage Foundation’s alarming plan to destroy American democracy in the event of a Trump victory in November. But there’s nothing quite like hearing about Project 2025 directly from, if you will, the horse’s mouth.
The mouth, in this instance, belongs to one of the foundation’s wildest horses, its president, Kevin Roberts. “Roberts told me that he views Heritage’s role today as ‘institutionalizing Trumpism,’” The New York Times Magazine’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro wrote earlier this year after interviewing him and hearing his thoughts on, among other things: rooting out American and Chinese communists who have infiltrated the federal government; embracing the virulently Christian-nationalist politics of Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban; not believing that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election for what he termed the “unknowns” around it (“I am no conspiracy theorist at all,” he assured Garcia-Navarro); the Biden family being a far bigger threat to our republic than the MAGA rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th—“just knuckleheads,” Roberts blithely described them; and so on.
It's quite an interview. Kudos to the NYTM reporter for fact-checking her subject throughout it and refusing, in a completely professional manner, to be gaslit by him.
Separately, with no lack of intent to chill any and all non-MAGA listeners, Roberts shared with a guest interviewer on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast (while its creator serves a four-month, federal prison sentence for two counts of contempt of Congress), his desire “‘to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.’”
If the left allows it to be. Let that sink in.
“Roberts’ remarks shed light on how a group that promises to have significant influence over a possible second term for former President Donald Trump is thinking about this moment in American politics,” Associated Press reported this morning and had re-published on Politico.
At the far right of those politics, which they are trying to drag to its center, Kevin Roberts and the Heritage Foundation are emblematic of this moment. And they’re happy to tell you how they plan to finish the job in November, saying “the quiet part out loud” as Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, is quoted near the article’s conclusion.
“Roberts, the Heritage Foundation, and its allies in Project 2025,” Beirich sums up, “want to reorder American society and fundamentally change it.”
Read Lulu Garcia-Navarro's New York Times Magazine interview with Kevin Roberts
Read the Associated Press article on Politico
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
A Monstrous Heritage
June 23, 2024
As policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rachel Cleetus makes no joke when she calls The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 a “920-page monstrosity of a document.”
In her June 14th article on The Equation, the UCS’s blog, “Project 2025 Would Be Disastrous for Our Nation and Our Climate,” Cleetus sums up the right wing foundation’s doorstop of a policy agenda document as “rooted in opposition to many hard-fought social gains, especially advances in civil rights, and ... pander[ing] to the interests of the rich and powerful.”
Her climate science expertise comes directly into play in this excellent piece when she breaks down, through several detailed paragraphs, the specific aim Project 2025 takes at the federal government’s ability to address the climate crisis. “Instead,” she notes, this nightmare of document “doubles down on actions to worsen it.” Cleetus then rightly calls it out for what it is: a “blatant attempt to prop up the fossil fuel industry and pretend away the reality of climate change.”
Over the past several weeks, we’ve recommended other readings relating to the Heritage Foundation’s extremely dark, would-be plan for this country’s future under a second Trump presidency. But the situation can’t get enough scrutiny, or be met with too much resistance by Indivisibles, here in Napa and everywhere else. “There is so much more that is egregious in the Project 2025 policy agenda,” Cleetus writes, “it’s quite honestly stomach-churning to contemplate.”
Read the article by Union of Concerned Scientists' Rachel Cleetus
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Red Hats and Faces
June 11, 2024
Crossing Highway 29 on the Trancas Street overpass over the weekend, the scene was hard to miss: a few dozen MAGA folks lined up on the north side of the bridge, decked out in red hats, carrying signs, and waving at passing cars to gets honks of encouragement—or perhaps receiving rather different signs of acknowledgement from less-than-amused drivers that afternoon. However disagreeable we found it (we didn’t slow down to gawk), the MAGA gathering was symbolic of the democracy Americans live under in this country and, specifically, the right to gather peacefully to let collective voices be heard.
And yet we, as Indivisibles, can’t help wondering what a gathering in Napa (or anywhere else) of people at our opposite end of the political spectrum might look like in the near future under a Trump presidency. Nor can the authors of a couple of impactful, and alarming, pieces of political journalism we came across this past week.
The New York Times Magazine and Vox ran feature stories in April and May, respectively, titled “Donald Trump Has Never Sounded Like This” and “If Trump wins, what would hold him back?”
The reporters—NYTM’s Charles Homans and Vox’s Andrew Prokop—apply skilled, investigative tools in their work: Homans has a byline noting that he “has attended seven Trump rallies in seven states since October;” Prokop’s bio focuses on his interest “in digging deep into the mechanics of how and why US politics works (or doesn’t), surfacing submerged debates, and exploring knotty complexities.”
In their respective articles, Homans and Prokop attempt in similar fashion to un-knot the complexities that exist between Donald Trump’s first presidency and his all-but-assured candidacy for a second term in the White House—and, especially, how his MAGA base has grown ever more paranoid about Joe Biden, Democrats of all stripes, and even democracy itself.
Saturday’s MAGA crowd on the overpass was, we would hope, all for the democratic notions of free speech and peaceful assembly. Ironically, they’re the beneficiaries of a system that their would-be leader holds in utter contempt—a concept that gets interrogated in these two recommended writings. So, if six months from now, Trump is elected as their actual leader again, can MAGA contempt for democracy be far behind? It’s a question posed by the NYTM and Vox reporters, and one we need to take very seriously.
Read Charles Homans' New York Times Magazine feature
Read Andrew Prokop's Vox article
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
Bridges Burning
May 8, 2024
For anyone paying even scant attention to college campus protests across the U.S. (and around the world) against Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, there can be little doubt that the Biden administration is playing a dangerous game of angering—and potentially turning away—scores of younger or first-time voters in November.
In an opinion piece from last week on AlterNet, “When moral purity becomes a lethal mistake,” columnist Joe Conason tackles this possibility head-on. Comparing 2024 to another very tense election year, 1968, he writes that “there is a haunting parallel between then and now in the increasingly fraught debate among Democrats and progressives over a divisive war—and the alienation of younger and minority voters from the party they would otherwise support.”
The election of 1968, Conason points out, “whose outcome proved disastrous for America and the world, looms over the coming months like a foreboding specter.”
Invoking personal, family history from that time, he recalls his opposition to the Vietnam War and how he and his father, “an Army veteran who also opposed the war,” disagreed over voting for the establishment’s Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey: his father did; the future political columnist did not. Nor did millions of other young voters who, he writes, vowed to “support a third-party candidate or simply abstain.” The result was the disastrous election of Richard Nixon.
That was then. This is now: 2024 and the existence of another “foreboding specter,” the likes of which democracy-loving Americans had already seen more than enough of during the disastrous Trump administration and its cancerous aftermath.
Joe Conason’s opinions on the nature and substance of the Gaza protesters’ actions won’t be to everyone’s liking, but he rightly points out that this year, “as always, voting will be an exercise of choices that are never perfect.”
Read Joe Conason's AlterNet opinioin column
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Democracy Killers
April 21, 2024
Our last two “What We’re Reading” emails have covered a subject that we think deserves a third look—along with close, ongoing scrutiny by all U.S. citizens, or any other folks living in 2024 America, who care about the future of its democracy: the Heritage Foundation’s Project 25, an innocuous-sounding “presidential transition” plan mapped out on this far-right think tank’s website for the world to see—and be horrified by.
On this subject, another very informative piece of reporting we’ve recently come across is this week’s suggested reading. It is, frankly, one of the most important thought pieces we’ve read since the founding of Indivisible.
The editorial team behind GPAHE—or Global Project Against Hate and Extremism—has a long section on its website that thoroughly interrogates Project 25 and, in the title, calls it out for what it is: The Far-Right Playbook for American Authoritarianism.
“Project 2025 is a threat to our democracy, and we must treat it as such,” GPAHE writes. "Authoritarian regimes generally abolish or restrict civil liberties, concentrate political power, and impede and weaken free elections that allow for alternations of power."
It then goes on to break this awful strategy down into its numerous elements, from the role of Christian nationalism and the gutting of the U.S. civil service to the restricting of sexual and reproductive health rights and the end of climate and environmental protection efforts. And that's just a portion of what the Heritage Foundation would have planned for this country.
It is, in short, a blueprint for a 21st century nightmare with global implications, and a deranged cult leader at its helm.
In their deep and thorough research into Project 2025, the GPAHE editors have also written extensive profiles of the dozens of far-right organizations that support it; the list may be quite long, but there’s no getting around the simple fact that the Heritage Foundation and its ilk intend to rule as a white, Christian-fascist minority if and when Donald Trump is re-elected president in November. It behooves all Indivisibles and other concerned people to familiarize ourselves with the threat represented by this anti-democratic, anti-American movement. GPAHE’s website is an excellent resource.
Read GPAHE's analysis of the far-right Project 2025
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Assessing Autocracy
April 14, 2024
“We ignore leaders who promise dictatorship— and those who enable them—at our own peril.” So write the team of authors behind “American Autocracy Threat Tracker,” an alarming but informative section on the website Just Security.
A new find for us, the site was launched by a group of academics and government policy experts in 2013 to, as they explain, “promote principled and pragmatic solutions to problems confronting decision-makers in the United States and abroad.” Though founded three years before the disastrous 2016 presidential election, those awful results, and the ascent of Donald Trump and his MAGA cult, would soon bring added relevance to Just Security’s mission.
Earlier this year, the five-member editorial team published their Threat Tracker with the sub-heading, “A Comprehensive Catalog Based on Donald Trump and His Associates’ Plans, Promises, and Propositions.”
In its introduction, the authors note, they “assess there is a significant risk of autocracy should Trump regain the presidency,” and list a variety of of actions a second Trump presidency would likely take that threaten democracy directly, including illegal abuses of power around energy extraction and immigration, the summary firing of tens of thousands of civil servants who don’t tow the MAGA line, and even hints of prosecution and execution (!) of his political opponents.
Just Security’s website and the Threat Tracker, in particular, are an invaluable clearing house of data, research, and other information surrounding the Trump-controlled GOP's plans for this country’s political, economic, and societal future.
As Indivisibles, we owe it to ourselves, our families, and our friends and colleagues in our Napa community and beyond to get up to speed with such important work as is being done by the minds behind Just Security—and then stay focused on the work itself: the preservation of our American democracy that Trump and MAGA are working just as hard to destroy. We ignore this threat at our own peril, indeed.
Read JustSecurity.org's American Autocracy Threat Tracker
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading (and Meeting About) Now
Dark Projections
April 7, 2024
In our re-booted monthly meeting last week, Indivisible Napa heard a Zoom presentation from one of our members who had done extensive research into what may be the scariest aspect of the Republican strategy for re-electing Donald Trump: embracing the far-right Heritage Foundation’s Project 25, an innocuous-sounding “presidential transition” plan mapped out its website.
In reality, this “project” is a blueprint for anti-democratic authoritarianism: the dismantling of the Federal government from the inside-out and its cynical replacement at every level with Trump loyalists.
As Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson explains in a recent post on her “Letter from an American” Substack, “Project 2025 presents an apocalyptic vision of a United States whose dark problems can be fixed only by a minority assuming power under a strongman and imposing their values on the rest of the country.”
Richardson’s column was just one of many our Indivisible colleague dug up in the course of a deep dive into what the Republican Party, under its Trumpist stranglehold, would have in store for Americans, starting next year and on into a frighteningly indefinite future. From mainstream voices at Katie Couric Media and PBS News Hour, to esteemed academics like Robert Reich, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and Richardson, down to community radio stations and news outlets across the country, alarm bells are sounding about the Heritage Foundation and its vile agenda. But, we have to ask ourselves, are they loud enough for undecided voters to hear?
As early as last August, Associated Press politics reporter Lisa Mascaro contributed an alarming piece about Project 2025 to PBS News Hour’s website. “While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump,” she wrote, “they are being echoed by GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and are gaining prominence among other Republicans.”
That pair of would-be challengers are now just a bad memory, which has only concentrated the GOP’s support of their party leader/aspiring dictator. And with the Heritage Foundation functioning not just as reactionary thought leaders, but taking a hyper-energized role in re-shaping American democracy to resemble Viktor Orban’s Hungary or even Putin’s Russia, the stakes in November couldn’t be higher.
In her article, Mascaro pointed out that “if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage coalition ensures the president will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business.” And, aligning with Heather Cox Richardson, she added, “the real plan behind Project 2025 is the rule of a small minority of extremists over the vast majority of Americans.”
Her reporting may be as ominous-sounding as the anti-American, anti-democratic Heritage Foundation, but it’s also a warning to be taken seriously, by both Indivisibles and the undecided, as the clock ticks towards November.
Read Heather Cox Richardson's Substack column
Read Lisa Mascaro's PBS News Hour article
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
False Prophet
March 31, 2024
A recommended read, and a timely one for Easter Sunday, comes from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. The veteran reporter’s opinion column from this past week, “Trump’s Bible grift is going to backfire,” offers a warning to the former president and unlikely Holy Book salesman.
“Donald Trump could be making a big mistake hawking the ‘God Bless the USA’ Bible to his MAGA supporters,” Robinson quips in his lead. “Some of them might actually read it.”
The warning is, of course, hypothetical. In reality, he writes, there is the baffling “theological basis on which Trump’s unlikeliest loyal followers—evangelical Christians and their pastors—justify looking past the way Trump scoffs at so many of the Bible’s instructions.”
Quoting highly relevant commandments from the Book of Exodus (“Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” etc.), Robinson exposes the extreme, faux-religious hypocrisy of Trump’s cult-like followers. While “they will find myriad reasons to forsake their profoundly flawed political hero” within the pages of the Bible, his column is a reminder that the MAGA faithful will continue to support him—from Easter Sunday until election Tuesday in November.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,” Robinson sums up with a quote from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, “but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
Read Eugene Robinson's Washington Post column
And find Zoom info here for Indivisble Napa's April 1st monthly meeting
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Un-Conning America
March 17, 2024
When it comes to interrogating the awfulness that is Donald Trump, Robert Reich pulls no punches.
As one of the former president’s most ardent and eloquent critics, Reich—former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, UC Berkeley Public Policy professor, and prolific author—can be depended on to regularly call out the threats that Trump continues, somehow, to represent to American democracy.
Sometimes, the good professor does it with a light touch. For a recent example, just go to his Substack. At robertreich.substack.com, he published a piece on March 14th, the title of which says it all: “Seriously, again, how dumb is Trump?”
In the article’s sub-heading, Reich asks the logical follow-up question, “And why has his extraordinary stupidity fallen off the radar during his third run for the presidency?” With that characteristic logic, supported by investigative reporting, psychological data, and no shortage of cheekiness, he then dives head-first into an explanation of why a career conman who “doesn’t read, can’t follow a logical argument, and has the attention span of a fruit fly” should be kept as far away as possible from a second presidential term.
Reich leads the article sharing that his “definition of stupidity is continuing to do something that has so far cost you a minimum of $91 million because you won’t stop doing it.” Taking readers through some of the details of the multiple E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation lawsuits, he follows by quoting many former Trump cabinet members, advisers, and campaign aides on the former president’s mind-boggling lack of intelligence.
Reich rounds out the piece through a counter-explanation of Trump’s “emotional intelligence,” whereby his “brain outperforms the brains of ordinary mortals. He knows how to manipulate people. He has an uncanny ability to discover their emotional vulnerabilities—their fears, anxieties, prejudices, and darkest desires—and use them for his own purposes.”
It would be a more enjoyable read if it weren’t such a deadly-serious topic.
Robert Reich’s Substack website is available to read for free, or through a nominal, and voluntary, subscription fee. Either way, his insights continue to be invaluable now and into the future of this historically important election year.
Read Robert Reich's March 14th Substack column
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Like Minds
March 10, 2024
On the Indivisible side of the fence, we’re almost all elated in the wake of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on Thursday night.
For some of us, “relieved” might be a better word to describe how it feels that the President acquitted himself as well as he did before Congress, the Supreme Court, and a national audience glued to their televisions. For others, the joy is unabashed that, on a day that started out with more trepidation than any in recent memory, things ended on a decidedly hopeful note. “Republican commentators pivoted their prevailing criticism from ‘Sleepy Joe’ being too old and confused,” Slate’s Jim Newell wrote in his punchy “Surge” column on Friday, “to ‘Jacked-Up Joe’ being too energetic, so the president’s strategy of demonstrating vigor had some purchase.”
It’s fair to say that we’re all pretty jacked up. And this, according to another online politics writer, The Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas, is the energy needed to carry progressives to the November finish line. In advance of the SOTU address, he published an article on his website, equally punchy in both title and theme: “It's time to face the Trump menace and save democracy. Let's f---ing go” is a great read, especially as its central message aligns almost seamlessly with that of Indivisible. “Our freedoms and American democracy are on the line,” Moulitsas writes. “And we have to do our part to protect it.”
Over several bullet-pointed paragraphs, he goes on to list the ostensible advantages progressives and Democrats can currently claim in this critical election year, utilizing both data and informed opinion. Importantly, he notes that the energy on the left has been building with intention. “You are the reason I’m optimistic about November,” he writes, addressing readers directly. “Democratic victories since the dawn of Trump haven’t happened in a vacuum. They have been fueled by unprecedented grassroots energy and activism.”
Markos Moulitsas’s Daily Kos piece is a timely reminder that Indivisibles share a side of the fence that’s getting bigger every day. Meanwhile, in addition to excoriating certain Republicans in his Slate column (along with the richly deserving Kyrsten Sinema), Jim Newell highlights that Biden’s SOTU speech “should provide temporary relief to Democrats skittish about Biden’s stamina. Now all he has to do is keep it up for another eight months.” And so do we.
Read "The Surge," Jim Newell's Slate column
Read Markos Moulitsas's article in The Daily Kos
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.
What We're Reading Now
Crunch Time
March 3, 2024
“California’s only statewide political race in the 2024 election,” Los Angeles Times Benjamin Oreskes wrote last month, “is over who will replace the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein in Washington.”
A 2023 Pulitzer Prize-winner (along with Times colleagues), Oreskes produced a thoroughly researched and—unsurprisingly—well-written voter’s guide to the California U.S. Senate election. The guide profiles each of the four leading candidates to replace Feinstein, who died last year.
Indivisible Napa has taken the position that, while any of the three Democrat Representatives in the running—Katie Porter (Irvine), Barbara Lee (Oakland), and Adam Schiff (Burbank)—would be terrific choices, Schiff, who consistently leads in the polls, has the best chance of beating the Republican candidate (and avowed Donald Trump supporter), Steve Garvey. And while, as Oreskes noted, the “three leading Democrats are very similar when it comes to their voting record in Congress,” Schiff’s profile as a national political figure who has taken a full-force approach to opposing Trump adds weight to his electability.
In a separate political piece in The Guardian on February 25th, which focused on Adam Schiff’s frontrunner status, Andrew Gumbel reported, “As the leading voice on the first of Trump’s two impeachments and as a congressional investigator into the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, Schiff has won widespread admiration and near-heroic status within his own party.”
With Indivisibles filling out our ballots and/or heading to polling places this Tuesday, March 5th, it’s useful to remember that, as Oreskes explains in his Times article, “voters will be asked to vote on two Senate races. Since [interim Senator Laphonza] Butler will serve as one of California’s two U.S. senators only until someone else is elected, the first race will decide who will hold the seat for the remainder of Feinstein’s unexpired term — from the date of the general election, Nov. 5, through the end of the term on Jan. 3, 2025. The second Senate race will determine who serves the next full six-year term as California’s junior senator, from January 2025 through January 2031.”
Whomever you decide to vote for in these two Senate elections, just remember to vote, period. 2024 is crunch time for our democracy.
Read Benjamin Oreskes' L.A. Times article
Read Andrew Gumbel's article in The Guardian
Your feedback is important to us. If you have any comments, concerns and suggestions, please share it with us.