See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Sadly that type of behavior does not come as a shock from Larryvillagers. No doubt those individuals were patting one another on the back for " fighting for the cause ." Little fish in a little pond.
Name calling is also rude behavior as it is exhibited by many of our more conservative contributors.
And n ot by the liberal side??
As a spectator at this event, I can confirm that there were no Tobias hecklers present. The 3 Jenkins hecklers were very much present and from what I could gather, annoyed the heck out of everyone around them
More important than a few rowdies in the crowd are jobs,economics and public education funding.
The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be
to make Obama a one term president.
Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
BRING ON EMPLOYMENT = THE GREATEST REPUBLICAN FEAR ON EARTH!!!
Repubs fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all WOULD keep them out of control for decades….. we would hope.
Keep in mind a prospering america can overcome repub fear mongering... it must.
What is the repub party afraid? Why do they ALWAYS say no?
What do Repubs fear?
--- Fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all americans
--- Fear Jobs Jobs Jobs for americans
--- Fear New USA industry thus new wealth for america
--- Fear new cleaner energy sources because it would create so many new jobs and reduce rates across the board
--- Fear Medicare Single Payer Insurance for = huge tax dollar savings to government,public schools,small business and all of us in general. Single Payer Medicare is the answer.
--- Fear Clean Collar Industries which produce jobs that cannot be outsourced
--- Fear educated Americans because WE ask questions
--- Fear losing of tax incentives/tax breaks for the wealthy that actually create tax increases for entire spectrum of the middle class
Just because you changed your name doesn't mean we don't know who you are.
Neither WOMEN nor Republicans nor Democrats nor the Upper Middle Class/Middle class can afford the Republican/RINO Party!
Do women need more republican big government in there lives? It is on the way!
Public Education is a strong player in new Economic Growth yet republicans starve
the system of funding which starves our teachers of resources. Which starves the desired level of education = stealing from our children’s future.
Trying to kill an educational institution such as Sesame Street and PBS is reckless and
Irresponsible. Republicans are out of touch going on 32 years.
Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007? Trillions of $$$$.
Let's talk about republican entitlements that have literally destroyed jobs,economies and retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.
DC republicans have been successful at wrecking our economy big time twice in the past thirty years. Because of the pattern I am convinced it is their economic policy established under the direction of Reagan/Bush.
Bush/Cheney accomplished a remarkable achievement by destroying the world economy which of course makes it difficult for the USA to bounce back quickly. The question becomes how in the world did they sucker financial institutions worldwide into buying bundles upon bundles upon bundles of bad USA home loans worth trillions of dollars in bad debt?
What an incredible and criminally insane economic policy? I don't believe the entire world can afford the economically reckless republican party that was born in 1980.
Let's talk about republican entitlements that literally destroyed jobs,economies,retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.
--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
--- This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007?
The fewer republicans the more our properties will become worth and the more likely USA jobs will be reinvigorated.
Anyone that states that it is only liberals that act disrespectful are not being honest.
So we've got liars on the right and disrespectful malfeasants on the left. What are we to do?
Heckling is not an attribute that is exclusive to "liberals," "radicals," or the "left." I remember the debates from the Hutch State Fair where Roberts supporters could not have been more obnoxious if they had tried.
I think that this type of behavior is unacceptable from any political corner, and any debate should be preceded by an announcement that the expectation for the debate is that the demeanor of the audience will be civil and respectful of all views of the candidates and that individuals not respecting the rest of the audience/candidates will be warned once, then asked to leave.
Then the moderator should back up their words with actions, if necessary. There is no protection of disruptive behavior in the First Amendment.
A few parts of the left are hateful and rude. You don't find their equal on the right until you get to supremacist whackos and schizophrenics that think god talks to them. Being inconsiderate doesn't have a party line, but it seems the Ds are always a little more desperate and therefore given to more bad behavior.
Oh, come on. Don't make this a domain exclusive to the left--it's simply not true. Personally, I see much of this behavior as an acceptable style in any high school event that I've seen of late. For example, at both of the local talent showcases Showtime and Encore, when a student comes on to get ready to perform, their fellow students and even parents will yell their name, scream and be so obnoxious that it greatly demeans the overall event for me. Since it is a musical venue, there is not much to be done about the obnoxious behavior (although it would be great if someone set higher standards), but in a political venue, such behavior should not be tolerated--from either side, and make no doubt that it's come from both sides before.
Funny you mention high school examples, as there were approximately 15 Lawrence High students at this debate, every one acting in a polite, appropriate manner. The three hecklers identified by the writer, when confronted by me after the debate about their rude behavior identified themselves as 70 year olds who had "earned the right to be rude"
That's great! I know young folks can behave appropriately, and it's good to hear that they were in this venue.
"Don't make this a domain exclusive to the left"
And the majority of those who posted here say it's only liberal Democrats who are rude? If I'm not mistaken, your posted quote was directed to our president at the State of the Union address! Obama 2012!!!!
How did you like that?
Excessive copy/pasting is a form of heckler's veto on this award-winning website. People get tired of scrolling past drivel they've seen hundreds of times and don't read the later posts on a thread. http://www.rbs2.com/heckler.htm
Look in the mirror. I'm betting you have a pretty high "scroll by" ratio too. It is however nice to see the concern for your fellow readers having to scroll, scroll, scroll all the time.
Are you conducting your own little JW Forum Inquisition?
No one expects the JW Forum Inquisition!
So, there were lots of people there, and 3 of them were obnoxious, and happened to be supporters of the D candidate.
Making one's decision about who to vote for on that basis seems rather odd to me.
There are a lot of rude obnoxious people in this country, on all sides of the political spectrum.
Wouldn't it be better to make these sorts of decisions based on policy and substantive differences between the candidates?
Those were my thoughts as I read this letter.
I suspect that the letter writer is not an undecided voter at all, but rather a Jenkins supporter attempting smear Schlingensiepen with the behavior of a handful of audience members. And I can guarantee that they weren't their under instructions from him to cause any sort of disruption.
Lol. She might as well have finished her letter with, "By the way, what's a CPA?"
Saturday Night Live _ Undecided Voter by hulu
Funny clip, but I hope JW figures out how to load in youtube videos without having them play automatically upon the opening of the thread.
I agree! That is annoying.
I'm sorry, edge. But, when someone writes a letter to the editor and says..."As an undecided voter, the actions of this group may help persuade me in my decision, but probably not in the way those three disrespectful citizens hoped"...then the letter writer should expect people to respond to that particular statement.
You know...that you should expect that people would respond to your "the actions of this group may help persuade me in my decision..." comment?
Like it or not, edge, but your comment literally BEGS for people to question your thinking.
I mean, do you seriously not understand that you literally were telling the rest of us in your letter to the editor that the poor behavior of 3 audience members might actually have an effect on your vote?? That their behavior actually could outweigh the candidates' positions??
Maybe that's not what you meant. But it certainly is what you wrote. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with "extremists"...or with the candidates...just with three rude people.
Why didn't you ask those folks to be quieter because you couldn't hear?
I think the writer's point was exactly that- she was TRYING to be informed by attending the debates and was limited by obnoxious Tobias supporters who wouldn't let a single Jenkins word be heard.
If they were that disruptive, why didn't somebody remove them?
Jenkins has no problem getting her message out, in a variety of ways - I'm sure that anybody can find out what her positions, and her voting record, show, if they're interested.
If the 3 were sitting in one area, somebody could just move to another area as well, if it bothered them so much.
By the way, I'm not defending their behavior at all - I support civil discussion and debate without rudeness and name-calling.
But, even the lte writer didn't claim she couldn't hear Jenkins and find out what her positions were - she just didn't like the bad manners of the 3 people.
So the hecklers bothered her more than our sitting Representative potentially lying? She didn't say if she did any fact checking on Jenkins' statements, but that would seem to be required if she was making up her mind about who to vote for from the happenings at one event.
Yet another example of the liberal definition of "tolerance" - conform or be relentlessly attacked for voicing an opposing view. Their orthodoxy is where the true bigotry lies in America.
You'll see what I mean by the replies that follow this post.
Excellent letter. Thank you Rachael.
Oh, please. This was not an "excellent" letter. Nor was it an example of "liberal intolerance."
It was a few individuals who, according to the letter writer, misbehaved, and another audience member making illogical and unsupported connections between them and Schlingensiepen.
Since when did the word "liberal" become a negative attribute? I believe it was around the time of Bush#1, if not well before. A definition of liberal from Webster's dictionary includes "Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit" I'm a liberal and proud of it!
Constitutional_Malfeasance said: "The left quite frankly is very uncivil and need to learn some manners. Even liberal journalists can not behave themselves anymore."
Are you joking? It was a republican congressman who yelled "liar" during the State of the Union address. And conservative commentators like Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and Coulter are some of the most uncivilized people on Earth - not out of conviction but because that's what their hate-filled conservative audiences respond to.
Sadly, the same crap happens to people who put up Obama/Biden signs. (Including the racial slurs.) Do you think Romney will call and apologize to them?
Jeez Louise...do you seriously believe that every darned person who has a campaign sign vandalized should be called by the opponent and apologized to???
(And do you seriously not understand the difference between Sandra Fluke...who was testifying before Congress...and some homeowner with a campaign sign in their front yard?? Gimme a break. Of course you do. But you apparently don't care. Yeesh.)
Sandra Fluke did not testify before Congress.
She was invited by a Democrat member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to speak at a committee hearing (not to "testify"), but was not approved by the Republican chairman of the committee. In response, the House Democratic Caucus held a meeting of its Steering and Planning Committee, in which Ms. Fluke spoke (but again did not "testify" as legally defined.)
Hopefully more research and thought goes into your decision-making process, but that is very sad that people would behave in that way. I don't support Jenkins because I would prefer representatives who have their own original thoughts and who I feel represent me, instead of towing the party line no matter what. I'm embarrassed that those people were so ill-mannered though at the event.
My guess is that they weren't very disruptive, in fact, otherwise they would have been removed.
I can understand why you are upset at their behavior, but why are you even considering letting the behavior of these people affect how you vote? Do you really think they were there doing this at the behest of Schlingensiepen?
If they were really that disruptive, then I don't understand why they weren't removed.
3 people ruining an experience for hundreds of people seems unlikely.
You're only grouped with them if you choose to be. And do you really believe that Schlingensiepen (and Democrats/Liberals in general) are somehow all impolite jerks just because of these few people? Is Jenkins (and Republicans in general) more polite, and do they represent you and your concerns better simply because of this single incident involving 3 people at one debate?
There have been many ways to find out what these two candidates believe and stand for.
I imagine a short internet search would provide you with many examples, and concrete things you can use to decide for whom to vote.
Go ahead and vote for the party of Joe Wilson who Yelled(not whispered) "You Lie!", a statement directed AT The President of the United States DURING the President's State of the Union Address, Which was televised and viewed by millions of viewers.
I agree their behavior was poor.
But, it seems that you want to make that mean more than it does, from where I sit.
Especially if you were planning to look it all up online anyway to inform yourself before voting.
First, this bothered me: "As an undecided voter, the actions of this group may help persuade me in my decision"
Really, this has to be one of the MOST asinine things I have ever read, in life. So, you could believe wholeheartedly in a candidate but if they had some rude supporters, you would vote for the other person (whom you consider to be inferior)? Wow! I like the Steelers and I know they have jagaloon fans (remember, it is the fans, not the players that you should be upset with). I also enjoy listening to Ozzy, AC/DC, The Police, The Ramones and many more and having been to thier shows, yes, you will find jagoffs in just about every crowd but why would you hate the band? Hey, did you stop believing in God after that nut shot and killed Tiller?
Second, Jan Brewer pulling that crap with a sitting President. It seems to be ok now to disrespect Obama unlike how any other President has ever been treated
It's true that we can find the positions of the candidates through research on the web & otherwise, but nothing represents their positions quite as well as hearing their stances live in real time from the candidates themselves. The opportunity to do so gives one a taste of their skills as communicators & how they might conduct themselves as an elected representative.
It seems as if these yahoos denied that opportunity to a few people with their boorish behavior.
Yes, perhaps to a few people.
The value of debates depends entirely on the format, and the ability of the moderator to enforce that format, and make candidates answer the questions posed, rather than engage in artful dodges.
The recent presidential debate told us almost nothing about the specifics of what either candidate would do if elected. It was 90% posturing and "performance" and about 10% content, and hence, completely useless as a tool for choosing a candidate to support.
I didn't see this debate, so I don't know how useful it was in making a truly informed choice.
I think that our elections and the campaigns for office are largely superficial. Romney definitely performed better than Obama, but it was a nearly content-free performance.
But given the vacuity of this contest in general, for some undecided voters that largely meaningless performance is about all they have to go on. Some other equally meaningless event (such as the next two debates) could swing them in the exact opposite direction.
I experienced the same type of behavior in one of Ms. Jenkins’s “town Hall” meetings some years ago. Worse, it was well organized and basically precluded anybody but the anointed from participating. There, too, the use of character assignation such as calling the speaker a liar was observed. Mr. Pitts has an op-ed piece on this today and what follows is my comment to that piece.
Facts do not have ideologically bias. Mr. Pitt’s article does. There is only one instance of a liberal misrepresentation (poor Hillary). All the other examples are of conservatives. Now it was Mr. Welch who argued that the books were cooked on the latest unemployment figures. He is not the conservative world. Today he presented his opinion as to what his comment was about in the WSJ.
I could observe that the 47% issue is based on fact. Annually 47% of us pay no federal income taxes regardless of the reason why or what might happen next year. There was no spontaneous demonstration in Libya caused by a poorly scripted movie but a planned attacked by a well coordinated and led group of what we today call terrorists. That is a fact despite a week of denial form the White House.
Seems to me as if we are unable to identify a fact if it does not fit our ideological beliefs. Lying is as noted a very poor way to run a campaign. I would opine that calling the other guy a liar because we do not like his presentation of a fact is just as poor a way to run a campaign. This later approach (noted in a letter elsewhere in this space) seems to be missing from Mr. Pitt’s musings.
Nobody has minimized her experience. We've merely pointed out that the behavior of these few hecklers has nothing to do with Mr. Schlingensiepen and his qualifications for the office he seeks.
How about going to the candidates own websites?
Rachel I was there as well and sitting in the 3rd or 4th row, so I hope you will be relieved to know that we weren't even aware that was going on behind us. I do remember hearing someone loudly whisper "liar" at one point but that was all I heard or saw. I guess next time try to sit closer to the stage?
Punish the victim!!
The idea that candidates speaking directly gives us unbiased and objective information would be funny, except that many people seem to believe it.
What we get from direct speech of candidates is whatever they happen to say, regardless of the facts.
It may be useful, but it's just one piece of information to evaluate, along with all of the others.
One might try looking at the candidate's record. Actions say much more than words.
And I have to wonder why the Dole Institute didn't eject these people if they were being so disruptive.
I agree you get direct speech from the candidates.
But, it's hardly unbiased or objective, in fact, given the level of misrepresentation in politics, it's likely to not even be the truth.
As we saw in the debate from both sides.
I'm simply suggesting that people be more discriminating and analytical when listening to candidates speak, and not think that's something it's not. Especially when candidates have a voting record that lets us know what they actually do, rather than say.
And, I certainly hope you understand that politicians while campaigning tend to tell us what they think we want to hear, and make promises they rarely keep, in some cases not even having the ability to keep them.
As far as the last 4 years, anybody who blames Obama for it without understanding the effect of pretty continuous R opposition in Congress doesn't understand how our system works, in my view.
On the way into work, I was cut off by someone with a Romney bumper sticker. Well, if Republicans are going to be that rude to fellow citizens in the everyday world, then I am voting for Democrats.
Yes, a silly letter. Since PBS is the one government program Romney said he would cut, it is a hot button political issue because it speaks to the candidates' priorities. Romney isn't ready to say he will cut funding to oil companies, which have seen record profits, but he will cut educational television. Well guess what, that money we are giving to oil companies, it too is borrowed from China, and it is more than 8 times as much money as given to PBS.
So Big Bird is not a silly issue at all. The notion that someone was rude at a political event -- like it is all that rare or seemingly isolated to one party -- and will sway someone's vote without consideration of the politicians' points of view and stands on policy is extremely silly.
The idea that PBS would survive without federal funding is not a guarantee, especially in less densly populated areas of the country. Also, commercial support would alter the level of programming. I strongly disagree that it is wasteful spending -- it is the opposite becaue it helps educate our population.
Romney saying something is on the table doesn't mean it would be on the chopping block. It clearly does not have the same level of priority for him as does putting the ax to funding PBS.
First off, Republicans simply do not have legs to stand on when it comes to arguing for fiscal responsibility. Since Reagan, who tripled the national debt, Republicans have driven the debt higher while cutting taxes that largely help the wealthy. Trickle down economics do not work. Romney appears he would follow along those same ways and has stated that he would not accept a single dollar in tax increase for 10 dollars of cuts. Lowering the debt and deficit will require both. Romney doesn't get that, Obama does. Hopefully when he is re-elected, the Republican House will not be so against working with Obama and something effective can take place.
Nothing is guaranteed
Interesting. Bozo do you presume that the actions of liberal supporters are not considered by voters yet you generalize the actions of some conservative supporters to condemn millions of your fellow citizens in an apparent hope that will lead to them to vote for your favorite.
IMHO, the actions of supporters, particularly if seen to be generalized, do affect how people vote. We are not electing a candidate – we are electing a party. Few of our elected officials vote consistently at odds with their party. You are a representative of the party you support!! Acting boorishly or deliberately disrespectfully gets counted and can work to your own disadvantage - however good it might feel at the moment.
"IMHO, the actions of supporters, particularly if seen to be generalized, do affect how people vote."
So, those few fans who cheered Matt Cassel getting clobbered on Sunday are going to cause every swinging Rick who supports the Chiefs to not do so now?
I know, sounds crazy to me as well!
Need I say more - the disconnect is soo obvious
these women were in front of my father who doesn't like mrs. jenkins either....
nothing like see that woman be snide towards a minister.....nice....
Exactly what direct subsidy do we give the oil companies? They get tax breaks just like green energy companies. Tax breaks originate from Congress. Mr. Romney has never been there but Mr. Obama has.
Anotheer red fish from the IMHO paid employee of the DNC
IMHO neitheer should get tax breaks.
debates by candidates often offer more info about style as opposed to content. Candidates can and do, say any old thing and if today is any example, say completely conflicting things every few hours , sometimes even in the same venue. So I'm less interested sometimes in WHAT they are saying than in their ability to think on their feet, be reflective, be inclusive and generous, able to follow the rules of the format, NOT BE A BULLY AND INTERRUPT THE OPPONENT(S) AND MODERATOR, restrain anger, be gracious, genuine and civil, be humorous and even self-deprecating instead of egotistical and trying to get off as many zingers as possible.So the reality is that Rachael can probably learn more by looking at Jenkin's record, and follow her $$$ trail than listening to her tea party talking points. I am offended by people who are rude in all kinds of public venues every day and I assume most people are; this letter generated a lot of heat b/c it occurred in a political context and allowed lots of folks to try to score points by politicizing incivility. Believe me, it comes in all stripes and varieties. What does surprise me is that we allow them to get away with it by abdicating our power, like ineffectual parents who want to be their kids' friend instead of doing the tough job of parenting. In the Presidential debate, I was shocked that Lehrer was completely steamrolled and inefffective against Romney's bullying, which Romney has done over and over in debates this year so he looks like a tough guy, pandering to the some simpletons who think that might makes right...if you holler a lie loud enuf and long enuf, a majority of simpletons will believe it's true.
Peaceful? Sure. There were men in suits with Assault rifles slung across their backs at many of those Peaceful Rallies. I ALWAYS equate Peace with an Assault Rifle.
Really?? Perhaps you have photo from the many rallies?? NRA functions do not count.
Google "Tea Party Rallies-Assault rifle photos". The NRA backs The Tea Party but I do not believe these were NRA events. They were TEA PARTY RALLIES. See for your self.Some of the most prevalent photos were taken at an OBAMA rally where Tea Party Protesters showed up with Hand guns and Assault rifles. The camera never blinks.
Taking a firearm to a PRESIDENTIAL Campaign rally and wearing it openly is just plain insane. Nothing like walking around with multiple sniper positions keeping a bead on YOU at all times. And DON'T tell me that was not the case. The Secret Service Don't Play Around!
First of all no photo reference but I saw at least one on TV some time ago
Second - how do we know the people with weapons were sanctioned by the Tea Party? Idiots showing up and drowning out conservatives do not make all liberals idiots
Third In most states carrying an unconcealed weapon is legal- not rational. Taking one to a presidential activity just may get you targeted - probably got them in the SS database - they probably were already there.
The point is that nuts doing inappropriate things at a gathering are still nuts. You cannot generalize however much it may make you feel superior.
IMHO this is exactly what people are talking about when they observe the extremism of our system. You see a nut you associate with the Tea Party and the whole “Tea Party” is nuts. In my day when the SDS took violent action I tended to blame all Democrats – Just as bad.
They may not have been sanctioned by the Tea Party ITSELF, But they identified themselves as Tea Party Supporters.I agree with you wholeheartedly on the point that a Nut Is A Nut, no matter who they claim to be affiliated with and both Parties have their fair share. Also, I do not seek to feel "Superior" to you or any one else. That is not my Nature.
People with Disabilities like mine are often Stigmatized, Treated like they are "Less Than" Normal. I only hope to be treated as an equal. This forum helps. I find answers to some of my questions here. I sometimes find answers in others responses and even in their questions. I only hope my input helps others as much as their input helps me. As my User name points out , I am a doubter. I am always searching for truth and It is very elusive these days.
Keep looking - the search is worth it.
Remember that conservatives tend to be more supportive of gun ownership. The Tea party tends to be financially conservative. That there is overlap should not be a surprise. How much - who knows. But simply having a gun does not make you dangerous. THat is another of the topics on which e are badly divided.
Thank for your civil tone.I believe in gun ownership as well. I am a well trained soldier. I am fiscally conservative, but not at the cost of the middle class. I would have a hard time choosing an abortion as a Possibility in most situations, but I support a woman's Right to choose as this is a very personal decision.Some of my best friends,male and female and some extended family, are gay. I am a 4th generation Blue Collar Democrat. I really feel like I don't fit in either party. Being an independent is a possibility but then I feel like I am "sitting on the fence". I will figure it out some day. Until then, I will continue my search. "Life is a Journey" some one once said, and I am one serious Traveler. Thanks again.
I know. Those police officers rioting against peaceful demonstrators were horrid. It's a good thing the fake charges have been thrown out in several communities.
What a bunch of malarkey. I was at the debate and was able to observe these "disrupters" for the entire thing. While one did hiss "liar" at one point towards the end, for the most part they were using the ASL sign for applause since most debates frown upon clapping or making noise. It was nothing more than a small show of approval whenever Tobias said something that group approved of. Maybe I'm biased because I agree with them. Sue me. Jenkins said a lot of things that would upset staunch liberals. I was surprised something didn't happen earlier in the debate. Outbursts will happen when a person is truly upset by what is said. That being said, I can't believe someone would make a decision based on a small group not even wearing Schlingensiepen gear. Lynn Jenkins had tons of supporters decked out in her shirts and pins. She didn't need more acknowledgment. Tobias deserved to know that his supporters were present. The outburst caused a minuscule ripple in the debate, but the moderators quickly moved on. Props to them for keeping calm and moving things along. The disrupters had their one moment and then kept quiet for the rest of it. They were then accosted by Jenkins supporters. Leave the poor elderly ladies alone.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·