Mort Sahl had a funny line -- given enough time even monkeys can type Shakespeare -- tonight about l'affaire Petropoulous. He said -- and this is not a direct quote so please bear with me -- that Professor Faggen and he had a conversation that went something like this.
In Sahl's ficitional story, he says Professor Faggen suggested recovering lost Nazi art instead of teaching. "He would find it very rewarding."
Ouch. [Insert nervous laughter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Of course Sahl lost me when he put Hitler and Mussolini on the Far Right. He then put Chavez on the Far Left. I admit to being confused.
I fail to see how Chavez and Mussolini are any different. They both are pretty fat economically totalitarian thugs who speak Romance languages.
I was kind of ticked off when Sahl ducked classifying himself on his own political white board. He mouthed some platitude about how you shouldn't put people in groups.
The irony seemed lost on him that for the last hour or so he had been doing just that!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
"An Evening With Mort Sahl" Was Luckily Only 72 Minutes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Once again Charles your far-reaching moral vision has caught me off guard. Now I see with brutal clarity how an elected leader who has overwhelmingly won the popular vote not once, but three times is nothing short of a left wing dictator. Yes Charles, Hugo Chavez is truly a violent thug on par with Mussolini. Even though he took no reprisals on those who attempted to oust him in a violent military coup in 2002 (not even prison sentences), we must not fail to recognize Chavez for what he is- a brutal military dictator on par with a right wing fascist who was complicit in the genocide of an entire people. A failure to do so would be nothing less than cowardly submission to the violent left-wing extremists who have hijacked our universities in an attempt to destroy freedom and the liberty to make as little sense as is humanly possible. Check your facts Charles- reality's a bitch.
I direct you, Matt, to the fact that Hitler, too, was elected. Not all that is elected is good, friend. I'd be willing to concede that Chavez isn't as bad as Hitler or as Mussolini -- by the way, Mussolini never harmed the Jews and was not complicit in the genocide of an entire people -- but it's not for lack of trying.
As for reprisals, are you really suggesting that just because Chavez didn't jail some of the people who tried to overthrow him that he's less of a thug?
He constantly threatens and intimidates his own citizens. Check out this article from MacLean.
Few in the opposition believe that this election will be free and fair. In the past, Venezuelans in the civil service have suffered reprisals for voting against Chávez, who currently controls 100 per cent of the legislature, most of the Supreme Court, and most of the five-member National Electoral Council. As Rosales noted in an interview with foreign journalists in Caracas last week, "Chávez controls the judicial powers, the ministries, the ombudsman, and four of the five members of the National Electoral Council."
Last month, the opposition released a video that shows the current head of PDVSA threatening to fire oil workers if they vote against Chávez. "We are going to do all we have to do to help our president," says oil minister Rafael Ramirez(also the minister of energy)in the video, recently made available to the Venezuelan media. "And whoever doesn't feel comfortable with this idea, should give up his job."
Now how about that for "democracy!"
It's not as bad as some of the stuff he's threatened to do to the milk farmers who decided to sell their stuff internationally.
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to take over farms or milk plants if owners refuse to sell their milk for domestic consumption and instead seek higher profits abroad or from cheese-makers.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez pours powder milk on his desk during his weekly broadcast.
With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.
"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.
Ah yes, those milk plants need to belong to the state!
Oh, and I could keep them coming with Chavez.
Charles, I'm glad that you have conceded your comparison was absurd and we can finally begin to chip away at some of the hyperbole in your arguments:
Hitler was elected once and then promptly suspended all democratic norms. Chavez has been elected three times and has failed to declare martial law even when his opponents tried to overthrow him with armed force.
The idea that Mussolini did not harm the Jews is absolutely false. Starting with the racial laws of 1938 Jews were second class citizens in Italy. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were deported from occupied Italian territory (especially Greece) to their deaths in the camps. The only thing that may be said for Mussolini is he did not gas Jews who happened to be Italian citizens. If this is your standard for lack of harm, (unless of course the perpetrator leans to the left- in which case I'm sure you'd make exceptions) I shudder to think what kind of behavior you consider to be authentically destructive. Perhaps next time you shouldn't be so hasty to make statements that are patently false.
The article isn't particularly revealing. The idea that Chavez's social spending has had no effect is just wrong. Since Chavez took office the number of people living below the poverty level has decreased by 38%. I would not make the mistake of turning this into the black and white argument those on the right have insisted on- Chavez has made many mistakes. I don't necessarily agree with the statements of the oil minister. That being said, it does make sense that in a country that is dependent on its oil revenues- the government would want to the ministry to be free from subversives and saboteurs. In 2003 an illegal politically motivated strike in the oil ministry attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government. If workers in this country motivated by islamist sympathies tried to derail the state by a general strike I doubt you would be very sympathetic concerning their future employment status.
Chavez's control in the government has nothing to do with dictatorship. The opposition lacks access because they boycotted elections. They boycotted elections because the Venezuelan public overwhelmingly supported Chavez when compared to the opposition. The fact that the government is pro-Chavez through legitimate elections can be seen in the fact that Chavez does not win every contest he undertakes. When he lost the referendum on the Constitution this year he dutifully respected the results and did not tamper with the vote.
If I had to summarize my main gripe with Chavez, it would be a flaw I also see in this blog- you are both given to extreme hyperbole and exageration. Chavez does pile a large amount of verbal abuse on his critics, including the milk farmers whose plight you have listed below. That being said, Chavez rarely bites as loud as he barks. Not only does he not jail his opponents- he issued a universal amnesty to all those who took up arms to remove him from power. I doubt George Bush would do the same if a violent radical insurgency were to spring up in this country. Chavez may call his opponents cowards, traitors, scum etc.- but so far yelling is about all he does.
Matt, I never conceded that my comparison was “absurd” – only that it was imperfect.
You’ve correctly noted some of those problems, but I think you’re mistaken about his crackdown on dissent in the military. Take this very prominent example of General Uson. Of course sometimes the threat of jail is enough to get compliance. Take this example. (Notice the chronic shortages in Venezuela, something very typical of the socialist-(lite) policies you want to see implemented in the U.S.)
These are just two examples. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
(As a side note, I wonder if you would be so willing to forgive these obvious human rights violations if they occurred under a Republican president, but I digress.)
You are also absolutely right on the situation with the Jews in Italy, but I think it’s worth noting that Mussolini saved more Jews than Schindler. But thank you for keeping me honest.
The French, on the other hand, who we consider our allies in that conflict, sent thousands to the death camps. Of course I condemn racist laws of any stripes or hue – including those favored by the current Democratic party – and so I don’t condone the conference of second-class status on the Italian Jews. But I am capable of recognizing that second class status beats the gas chambers.
There is no credible evidence that Chavez has decreased poverty by 38% -- at least in the long term. In every measure, Chavez has robbed his country of entrepreneurship and the country is becoming less economically free, not more so. Instead, he’s picked and chosen who will get wealthy and who will not. In essence, he has mastered what the Left in the U.S wants to do – control a massive redistributive system. As we’ve seen with the massive shortages, when you set up your entire country on speculation around one natural resource, the consequences are very, very bad.
Let’s unpack your bit on “politically motivated strikes in the oil ministry.”
I don’t recognize nationalization as a right because I believe in the notion of property rights. And so, I don’t fault a group for making an illegal strike. (As an aside, I believe that you have the right to strike, but that your private employer has the right to terminate you – something I’ll explain in more detail when I address Cesar Chavez day tomorrow. When a company becomes a public good – i.e. state education, -- I believe it’s immoral for the people to strike for better wages or whatever, but I would move towards privatization before I would move towards criminalization.)
If you remember, the strikes in Poland that opposed the communism you hold dear were also illegal. As were the ones in South Africa that opposed apartheid. Whether or not something is illegal does not mean it is just or unjust.
Chavez is a tinpot dictator by every objective measure. The reason the opposition boycotted the elections was that Chavez and his goons controlled the electoral council already and therefore controlled how the votes were going to be certified.
As for the laughable assertion that he “dutifully respect the results,” watch this video and tell me that’s dutiful. In democracies, you don’t “let decisions stand.” They stand on their own whether or not you want them to.
Your false moral equivalency between myself and Chavez – a man who has jailed the opposition and who funds terrorists in other, democratic states with petrodollars that should never have been his in the first place – speaks for itself and is no more true because you’ve made a clever analogy.
I find it interesting that you are more willing to compare Chavez to Bush than to Mussolini. Of course serious scholars – who’ve examined Mussolini and Chavez know right where to classify both of them – on the left!
But cheer up, Matt! Chavez and you both agree on something: He's against McCain too!
and by serious scholars, you mean Jonah Goldberg. Liberal Fascism was cute and all, but it's been debunked by just about everyone a million times over.
here's a snippet from Michael Mann's Washington Post review of the book:
"Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist party programs contained active social welfare policies to be implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?
The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books."
This is the second or third time this blog has tried to cast Mussolini and/or Hitler as members of the far left. Just because they were statists and authoritarians does not mean they were members of the far left. Reference also the 20 million Soviets killed by the Germans, or the communists cast off to concentration camps, or the fact that the National Socialist German Workers Party is up there with the Holy Roman Empire for the greatest European misnomer.
True, conservatism transcends the American Republican Party to hold down the mainstream right of American politics, while the John Kerry's of the world represent the far left. But neither of these terms really encapsulate the far right or left of global politics, which stretch across a much broader spectrum.
Still, the kind of far right ideologies of European fascism only gained popularity in the turmoil created by the Versailles Treaty and have not reentered mainstream politics since. And the far left (i.e. communism or Marxism) has not had a place in American debate since the late 1960's.
That in practice the far Left dictatorships seen in Central America and especially the former Soviet Union under Stalin looked and acted much the same as the far right dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini is a great topic of discussion, however it is by no means original. One could fill a small library with books and articles making this very comparison.
Still it is to ideology, and not practices and policies, that we ascribe the words "left" and "right," and European fascism makes Burkians look like liberals.
Actually, I was referring to the Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, but now that you've mentioned Goldberg let's have at it!
First off, you haven't read it. You should. Let me repeat: You should read it before you comment on it.
Just something to think about.
Let's turn to the review you've provided.
You cite Michael Mann, a sociologist, as somehow a refutation of Goldberg's thesis. For starters, Mann makes several arguments that Goldberg never makes and he never disputes that conservatives are tempted by fascism or corporatism. He even talks about how Nixon and Einsenhower had corporatist tendencies in several interviews he's done since the book was published. Goldberg has argued on numerous occasions that writing the book made him more libertarian and so the moniker conservative doesn't really apply.
Of course you would know this, Pat, if you actually read the book.
Me thinks that Mann is just embittered that his book, reviewed widely by all the Leftist of the academia, didn't sell at all. Alas.
Here's how I make the argument that Hitler and Mussolini were members of the Far Left.
I measure regimes by three things, generally.
1) They were against free markets and for government intervention in the market.
2) They supported racial quotas and believed in group identities over individual identity.
Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy did such things and believed hook-line-and sinker in the same kind of thinking.
Aristotle once argued that we know the general from the particular and so that's how we must examine regimes because actions often happen due to reason.
As for National Socialist German Workers Party being like Holy Roman Empire, consider the following.
Was it National? Yes.
Was it Socialist? Yes
Was it German? Yes.
Did it seek to benefit its workers? Yes.
Did it? No.
Was it a party? Not for the Jews, Slavs, or anyone else who wasn't German.
I guess that's because I'm a textualist and think words have meaning.
It was a welfare state par exclusion.
As for your misreading of Versailles as leading to some kind of far Right ideology, read the book.
we'll give Goldberg another run after I finish Crime and Punishment and Anna K, but let's stay on the meat of defining the left vs. the right. Of course, I brought up Goldberg because his book has allowed some to unabashedly and falsely declare Mussolini and Hitler as leftists. I know that Goldberg is a much smarter man, even if he played the old academic card of organizing research around a pre-formed conclusion contrary enough to popular opinion to sell books. And I referenced Mann because Mann's full review praises the research and argumentation of Goldberg while criticizing the selectivity of his evidence. A fair review in all, I thought.
Of course, you know that the terms right and left originate from the seating arrangement at the French Legislative Assembly in 1791. The Mountain (later the leaders of the Jacobin club) sat on the left while the staunch Monarchists and supporters of the ancien regime sat on the right.
This doesn't sort out the location of European fascism, but it does raise an interesting point - your arbitrary two criteria (though you promised three) for judging a regime are completely flawed. Just for starters, the members of the original far left were champions of individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism.
Don't worry I won't be blaming John Locke or Adam Smith for the Jacobin Terror.
But let's move on. The definitions of right and left have moved drastically and often quickly such that the terms seem to be applied differently to every political spectrum.
Let's look at post-WWI Germany:
Under the leadership of the likes of Rosa Luxemburg, the left controlled much of German politics in the late 1910's. Had the left been unified we might have seen the rise of a communist state in Germany, but instead a feeble constitutional republic was set up; later known as the Weimar Republic. I say feeble because social and economic conditions in Germany during the 1920's and 30's prevented it from ever setting in firm roots.
The fractured SPD, which became the borderline revolutionary USPD and the more republic-oriented MSPD joined with the KPD (communists) to form Weimar's left.
It was indeed the moderate left that favored republicanism (small 'r') and provided the opposition to the Kaiser.
However, there were threats on both the far left and the far right. The far left defined politics by class interests and looked to their brothers in Russia as the avant garde of communist revolutionaries.
The far right, on the other hand, believed in state interests and after crushing defeat and embarrassment in WWI, wanted a return to the powerful centrally-controlled state set up as the First Reich after unification. They too distrusted the capitalist West and opposed anything to do with Weimar, including individual liberties. They favored strength.
I will digress a little into the origins of the nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The group started out as the German Workers' Party (DAP). Hitler had no real ideological ties with the group. Quite the contrary, he first met the leaders while spying on them for the German military. They (like many millions to come) were overwhelmed by his oratory skills and invited him to lead the group. Hitler accepted, but their union was one purely of mutual ambition. It was the DAP that was converted to Hitler's beliefs, not the other way around.
Hitler actually wanted a different name for the party, the German Social Revolutionary Party; however he was convinced instead to steal the name of the German National Socialist Workers' Party, an Austrian group. They became the NSDAP.
Back to Weimar, trust of capitalism and Western powers was almost non-existent as hyperinflation set in. The currency was abandoned, but the MSPD (center-left) and the Centre (center-right) were facing increasing pressures from both the extreme left (KPD) and the extreme right (NSDAP).
The middle shrunk as both extremes began converting the working and middle classes en masse. And indeed both groups made electoral gains within the Reichstag simultaneously following the NYSE crash and the ensuing Great Depression.
Hitler's name game with the party and his flexible rhetoric won over the masses, even many on the left. You can very easily access transcripts of Hitler's orations from the time. Depending on the crowd, Hitler would rail against the communists, capitalists, and the Jews. He appealed to the large affected middle and working classes who were afraid of the revolutionary left, angry at the capitalists, and found scapegoats in the Jews (who Hitler diabolically portrayed as being both capitalists and communists; he was that persuasive).
We then look to Hitler's seizure of power with the Reichstag Fire. Hitler quickly blamed the communists, and suspended civil liberties while putting the nail in Weimar's coffin.
Communists within Germany were quickly persecuted, arrested, and often killed. There are many films and books about members of the left struggling over whether their ideas or lives were more valuable during these years. Many of them could fake being Nazis, a luxury the Jews never had.
Of course, we can point to the many state-controlled institutions like the arts and various programs that look like social welfare. Much of this was in response to the ever unpopular moves by the Depression-era Weimar governments to curb federal spending; all of it falls under the Nazi vision of a greater Germany offering nothing but the best to its superior race of people. None of it rightly categorizes Hitler or the Nazi Party as far-left.
This is a far different political landscape than the American left vs. right, and one that deserves better examination that your crude criteria can offer.
In the end, I suppose I'd rather misinterpret a National Review editor than be dead wrong about one of the most well-documented and thoroughly-investigated periods in all of history. And don't call yourself a textualist. You're not Antonin Scalia.
Dissent in the military? While standing as an active member of the legitimate Constitutional government, Uson acquiesced to a violent military coup. Following the coup he campaigned openly against the democratically elected government. Military personnel by the nature of their career cannot use their position to coerce the government in a properly functioning democracy. Following his public campaigning he then used his position to advance the claim that the government had been responsible for killing its own troops. I do not agree with the actions of the Chavez government; that being said these actions are certainly not without precedent- even in our own democracy. One only need look at the red scares of the 1920's and 50's to see examples of citizens and even government officials imprisoned for crimes of conscience in a democracy. When it comes to the actions of our own government I can tell you with a straight face that if a military officer openly campaigned for the overthrow of the constitutional government I would support his prosecution under the full weight of the law.
The fact that you are effectively apologizing for Mussolini, a man who was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Greece and the Balkans is nothing short of abhorrent. That you would compare such actions with today's Democratic Party- the party responsible for the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act- betrays the ludicrous nature of your own dogmatic beliefs.
I apologize for the inaccurate statistic. In actuality the number of households living below the poverty level has fallen to 38% from a high of 56% when Chavez took office. This has allowed millions of families to rise above the stranglehold of desparate poverty. These stats are available right off of the CIA's own world factbook. That's hardly a very, very bad thing.
The strikes in Venezuela were unjust because they sought to bring down a fairly elected democratic regime. The idea that I support Stalinist Poland is laughable. Don't even try and tell me that because I know Che Guevara wasn't tying men up in front of their families and summarily executing them means I support the Polish Stalinists.
I'm glad to know that only opponents of the regime are qualified to certify elections. You must agree that Katherine Harris was ineligible to certify the Florida elections then right? The fact that Colombian agents representing a government that almost went to war with Chavez claim to have found intelligence linking him to the FARC is no more credible than Colin Powell's objective pre-war briefing to the U.N. I would definitely have to agree with you that the best way to identify a tin-pot dictator is someone who, despite controlling all of the electoral councils , allows decisive electoral defeats against his interests.
The relative affinity of the Nazis for leftist economics is almost impossible to test, due to the fact that from the beginning of their reign they were hell bent on constructing an indestructible war machine. This forced them to resort to government planning and regulation. German re-armament meant we have no way of assesing how Nazis would deal with economic policy during times of peace. That the Nazis were financed and allied with many prominent German industrialists, violently hostile to any parties professing allegiance to a leftist ideology, and brutally crushed organized labor makes your hypothesis questionable at best.
First Pat,
On the Mann review, I would argue that it approximates fair until the last three paragraphs when he characterizations Goldberg’s points on Clinton.
His assertion that the reason Fascism did not occur in the U.S. entirely ignores Woodrow Wilson’s red scare.
As for that “old academic card,” unless you know the innards of his soul, I don’t know how you can say he organized research around a pre-formed conclusion. He’s been working on the book for almost a decade and so it seems possible that he just as easily could have collected many data points and then come to a thesis.
I’m well aware of how the terms “left” and “right” started. (As I’ve mentioned on this blog, I am a fluent French speaker and a student of French history.)
I’ll be willing to grant you the concession that the original left were champions of individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism, but I would counter that they could easily be classified as a libertarian right.
The feebleness of the constitutional republic and the infighting on the Left is something Goldberg directly addresses in his chapter, “Adolf Hilter, Man of the Left.”
When you talk of the coalition, you are assuming that all of its members were leftists and not just political parties forming coalitions. The groups you’ve mentioned could just as easily grouped together because they found the other members less objectionable than the others outside of the coalition, but that doesn’t mean that the coalition wasn’t fraught with difficulties – something Hitler recognized immediately and set about dismantling.
I thank you for the history lesson. It isn’t anything I’m unfamiliar with and is talked about in Liberal Fascism, for the record. I recognize that Hitler may have been more of an opportunist than I’ve suggested, but I look at the net effect of his policies.
I think, though, that you are being disingenuous about the Left and Hitler’s relationship. Just because Hitler roughed up the communists (and by roughed up I mean killed) doesn’t mean he didn’t
In fact, Goldberg argues a major reason he killed the communists was that he thought that they were agents of Russia, not due to their politics.
On your final point, when you’ve read the book, you can have an opinion on it. You might find you even like it. (Assuming you are actually telling the truth about being a libertarian.)
P.S. I can call myself a textualist all I want. I’ve read Rossum’s Text and Tradition thrice!
There’s a lot to address in your post, Matt, so please forgive me if I make an error in addressing. (I have to work quickly, so if you need any links feel free to ask for them. I have them all on delicious.)
It should go without saying that I am not apologizing for Mussolini, but that I’m capable of recognizing degrees of evil.
Uson believed that he took an oath to the Constitution of Venezuela and that Chavez violated that Constitution. Our own soldiers swear to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. As judicial review was effectively hijacked by the Chavez regime, I see him as a hero – as do many Venezuelan ex-pats. When the government betrays the constitution it becomes nothing more than a slip of paper.
On the issue of the Democratic Party and the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats.
I quote this article ”http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm”
“The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen’s leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.”
The Democrats later hijacked those laws to make them support quotas – something the people who voted for it adamantly opposed.
To attribute the falling in poverty to the CIA factbook is fraught with problems. For starters, governments give that information. The CIA doesn’t get it on its own.
Of course others, like this most recent article in Foreing Policy has put to rest the lie that http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html
Chavez’s economics actually benefit the poor.
Again, if governments themselves and their own supporters certify the elections, it’s problematic. Remember, the communists also said that they spoke for the people. Just like Chavez. (Your comparison to Harris would only work if she were actually appointed by Bush as the people who certified the Venezuelan election were appointed by Chavez, but for the record, I oppose that kind of certification in Florida.)
Colombia is bringing Chavez to the International World Criminal Court for his funding. Chavez also admitted to funding them later on.
We have no evidence that the Nazis were committed from day-one to war, but I’ll entertain your analysis so I can refute it. You’re essentially arguing that because the ends were different between the leftist state you would establish and the Nazi state that the means must also have been different. I think you can say the problem with that analysis.
The Nazis wanted national health care, to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and more social security, so maybe their ends weren’t entirely different.
Organized labor, by the way, was largely in bed with Mussolini and Hitler, the larger unions that is. The smaller ones were attacked by the black shirts under the orders from the largest unions.
"Soviets killed by the Germans"
Since French Catholics slaughtered Protestant Huguenots, does that mean that either Catholics are not Christians or Protestants are not Christians?
Post a Comment