September 30, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palestinian-authority-president-mahmoud-abbas-al-aqsa-jerusalem-israel/

Mahmoud Abbas declares intent to break Israel agreements
CBS/AP
September 30, 2015

Photograph -- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas holds a Palestinian flag before raising it during the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan, New York, on September 30, 2015. REUTERS/ANDREW KELLY


NEW YORK - Saying Israel has repeatedly broken its promises, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said his people will no longer keep theirs.

In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, Abbas called the state of affairs in Israel "unacceptable," and he repeatedly slammed Israeli leaders for breaking promises "as an occupier." As a result, Abbas said, the Palestinian people will no longer recognize any agreements they have signed thus far with them.

"They are not listening to the truth," Abbas said.

Abbas' defiant speech came on a historic day for the Palestinian people: the U.N. officially raised the Palestinian flag outside its New York headquarters, with the blessing and full support of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

Abbas' speech Wednesday morning was most serious warning yet to that he might walk away from engagement with Israel and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, although he stopped short of accompanying his threat with a deadline.

Abbas cited the continued settlement expansion, the alleged violation of border rights, the accused toleration of Jewish extremists, Israel's refusal to release certain prisoners, and the ongoing drama at the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem as some of the reasons why he no longer feels bound to his promises to Israel.

The Palestinian leader said there was still a chance for peace, and that he hopes Israel joins most of the rest of the world in recognizing an independent Palestine.

"One hundred thirty-seven states have recognized our state," Abbas said. "That is four times the number of states that recognized Israel at its foundation."

On Wednesday, he said that Israel's refusal to commit to agreements signed "render us an authority without real powers."

Abbas' tough talk could be an attempt to mask his political weakness. Hopes of setting up a Palestinian state have been derailed, and there are calls for the leader to resign and dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Without a specific deadline for taking those steps, Abbas left himself room for diplomatic maneuver to refocus the attention of the international community on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In response to his speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement calling Abbas' words "deceitful," adding they prove "the fact he does not intend to reach a peace agreement."


After lashing at Israel inside the U.N., Abbas raised the flag of the state of Palestine at the United Nations for the first time on Wednesday with a promise that it will be raised soon in Jerusalem, "the capital of our Palestinian state."

More than 300 ministers, diplomats and well-wishers who crowded into the rose garden at U.N. headquarters where a temporary flagpole had been erected for the ceremony applauded his words.

Abbas told the crowd it was a "historical moment" on the Palestinian road to independence.

As the black, white, green and red flag went up the flagpole, cheers and shouts of "Peace! Peace! Palestine!" erupted.

The Palestinians campaigned for a General Assembly resolution that was overwhelmingly approved on Sept. 10 allowing U.N. observer states to fly their flags alongside those of the 193 U.N. member states. The Holy See and Palestine and are the only two U.N. observer states.

In contrast to the Palestinians, the Holy See flag was raised outside U.N. headquarters alongside flags of the 193 U.N. member states without fanfare or ceremony just before Pope Francis arrived last Friday to address the General Assembly. The permanent flagpole for the Palestinian flag is already in place beside it.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Wednesday a day of "pride" and "hope" for Palestinians around the world.

He urged the Palestinians to pursue their long-held dream for their own state by first uniting Gaza and the West Bank, and he urged Israel and the Palestinians to revive negotiations that collapsed last year and conclude "a successful peace process."

That will lead to the unfurling of the Palestinian flag "in its proper place - among the family of nations as a sovereign member state of the United Nations," Ban said.




“In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, Abbas called the state of affairs in Israel "unacceptable," and he repeatedly slammed Israeli leaders for breaking promises "as an occupier." As a result, Abbas said, the Palestinian people will no longer recognize any agreements they have signed thus far with them. "They are not listening to the truth," Abbas said. Abbas' defiant speech came on a historic day for the Palestinian people: the U.N. officially raised the Palestinian flag outside its New York headquarters, with the blessing and full support of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Abbas' speech Wednesday morning was most serious warning yet to that he might walk away from engagement with Israel and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, although he stopped short of accompanying his threat with a deadline. …. The Palestinian leader said there was still a chance for peace, and that he hopes Israel joins most of the rest of the world in recognizing an independent Palestine. "One hundred thirty-seven states have recognized our state," Abbas said. "That is four times the number of states that recognized Israel at its foundation." …. Abbas' tough talk could be an attempt to mask his political weakness. Hopes of setting up a Palestinian state have been derailed, and there are calls for the leader to resign and dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Without a specific deadline for taking those steps, Abbas left himself room for diplomatic maneuver to refocus the attention of the international community on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response to his speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement calling Abbas' words "deceitful," adding they prove "the fact he does not intend to reach a peace agreement." …. The Palestinians campaigned for a General Assembly resolution that was overwhelmingly approved on Sept. 10 allowing U.N. observer states to fly their flags alongside those of the 193 U.N. member states. The Holy See and Palestine and are the only two U.N. observer states. …. He urged the Palestinians to pursue their long-held dream for their own state by first uniting Gaza and the West Bank, and he urged Israel and the Palestinians to revive negotiations that collapsed last year and conclude "a successful peace process."

This Wikipedia article just gets more and more complicated with the various changes in the agreed territories every few years and border wars as well. I give up on them all. Today they have both announced the renewal of hostilities just days after the Palestinian flag has been allowed at the UN. It’s so very sad.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Palestinian territories

"Palestinian territories" and "occupied Palestinian territories" (OPT or oPt) are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.[7][8][9] Israeli governments have maintained that the area involved is within territorial dispute.[10][11] The extent of the territories, while subject to future negotiations, have frequently been defined by the Green Line. The term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" had been utilized by the UN and other international organizations between 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to the Palestinian National Authority; it was replaced by the UN in 2013 by the term State of Palestine.[12]

Israel occupied the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Six-Day War of 1967, which had been earlier occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively, and has maintained control of them since.

In 1980, Israel officially absorbed East Jerusalem and considers the whole of Jerusalem to be its capital. The inclusion, though never formally amounting to legal annexation, was condemned internationally[13] and declared "null and void" by the United Nations Security Council.[14][15] The Palestinian National Authority, the United Nations,[16] the international legal and humanitarian bodies[17][18] and the international community [19][20] regard East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, and consequently a part of the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian National Authority never exercised sovereignty over the area, although it housed its offices in Orient House and several other buildings as an assertion of its sovereign interests,[21][22] until Israel shut them down in response to the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing.[23] Israeli sovereignty, however, has not been recognized by any country, since the unilateral annexation of territory occupied during war contravenes the Fourth Geneva Convention.[24][25]





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/zombie-super-pacs-what-happens-to-all-that-cash/

Zombie super PACs: What happens to all that cash?
By CHRISTINA RUFFINI CBS NEWS
September 30, 2015

Photograph -- Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (L); Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) AP IMAGES / REUTERS
Play VIDEO -- Campaign Finance 101: A breakdown of 2016's "game for billionaires"
Play VIDEO -- The rise of the personalized super PAC?


Rick Perry and Scott Walker are out of the race - but that doesn't mean the fundraising organizations that supported them died along with their 2016 dreams.

They've joined the ranks of the zombie super PACS: fundraising organizations with money to spend but no living candidate left to support.

So with their candidates six feet under, what happens to all that cash?

Due to still-evolving campaign finance laws, there are few rules for how super PACS must operate after the person they backed stops running.

A super PAC with a failed candidate is under no legal obligation to refund its donors. There is also no deadline for an organization to shut down after its candidate drops out.

The group can, of course, choose to cease operations and give back what's left of the money - which is what both the Perry and Walker organizations have promised to do.

But the super PAC can also keep the cash and continue to spend on issues, advertisements, salaries, operating costs, whatever.

"There are no constraints beyond the ban on giving to candidates and political parties," said Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center. "A single individual could set up a super PAC and use every penny she raises to pay herself a salary."

That means the leaders of the organization could legally cash out, buy a yacht, name it The SS Thank You FEC and sail off into the political sunset. Really. The only federal entity that might possibly come after them, Ryan says, is the IRS.

So why aren't multiple FEC-themed yachts aren't sailing around the Caribbean? It has very little do to do with regulation and a lot to do with reputation.

"You have serious political professionals who are closely associated with serious candidate's campaigns, and they have a real profession incentive to not abuse the good will of their donors," Ryan said.

Perry and Walker relied heavily on a handful of those big-money donors to bolster their super PAC reserves. When Walker dropped out last week, his "Unintimidated" PAC was quick to issue a statement promising to refund supporters on a "pro-rated" basis. The group raised more than 20 million dollars in the last reporting cycle, and told CBS News it is working on "winding down efforts" and giving the money back.

The "Opportunity and Freedom" PACs that supported Perry raised somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 million dollars- five million of that from a single contributor, billionaire Darwin Deason. In the days following the former Texas governor's withdrawal from the race, Deason's son made it very clear that his father expected his money back. Austin Barbour, who led fundraising efforts for the group, told CBS News that the remaining 13 million dollars had all been returned, but declined to say specifically when the group would stop operations.

"The lawyer will shut it down at the appropriate time," he wrote in an email.

However, the PAC is under no legal obligation to do so. In fact, several super PACs from the 2012 election were still filing with the FEC years after their candidates dropped out.


Jon Huntsman's super PAC "Our Destiny," only received its official termination from the FEC in January of 2015. The group raised about three million dollars, which it promised to return it to donors. At the end of 2012, it had about 20 thousand dollars on hand, most of which went toward "operating expenses."

Newt Gingrich's super PAC "Winning our Future," continued to run for more than two years after he withdrew his candidacy. The organization raised 23.9 million dollars, thanks in large part to mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The PAC refunded five million dollars to Adelson's wife, but still had almost half a million dollars left over. Much of that money was paid as consulting fees to the organization's president, managing director and other individuals. The PAC also paid a $25,000 "Annual Membership Fee" to the Republican Governors Association before eventually shutting down for good in July of last year.

Part of the problem, Ryan said, is that the circuit court case that lead to the creation of these groups never contemplated that they would be tied only to individual candidates:

"The folks who invented super PACS through court litigation were never asked the question what happens when a candidate drops out because they weren't supposed to be supporting a specific candidate. They were nominally to be supporting multiple candidates."

It's an issue, he said, that isn't likely to be resolved any time soon --even as the the field continues to winnow. And with no set path to guide these groups through the post-candidacy graveyard, the ranks of the zombie super PAC are only likely to grow.




"A single individual could set up a super PAC and use every penny she raises to pay herself a salary." …. "The folks who invented super PACS through court litigation were never asked the question what happens when a candidate drops out because they weren't supposed to be supporting a specific candidate. They were nominally to be supporting multiple candidates."

This is truly “an embarrassment of riches!” The rules on these funds are so complex and convoluted that they should be disallowed completely. They only serve to make the election of candidates more and more corrupt. When large donations were allowed the situation worsened. See the article below for some more information on the subject.


http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/super-pacs.html


Super PACs Explained

The evolution of the new political action committees that have altered the course of political campaigns

Each presidential election season seems to bring a new fund-raising controversy. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first candidate in a general election to spurn the public financing of campaigns to avoid having to comply with spending limits. In 2000, George Bush and Howard Dean became the first Republican and Democrat, respectively, to refuse public financing of a primary campaign. And of course, there was Watergate, which introduced the Federal Election Commission and a round of campaign-financing laws.

Super PACs emerged as a major influence in the 2012 campaign, and will continue to be a major factor in future elections. Super PACs are independent political committees that support a candidate with unlimited, often anonymous, donations from companies, unions, or individuals. The groups can't contribute directly to a candidate, but they can run favorable ads about a candidate—or negative ones about their favored candidate's opponent. Most of the ads sponsored by super PACs are negative and take considerable liberties. The people running the PACs are typically closely connected to the candidate the PAC supports.

The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.

Supreme Court Decision Led to Popularity of Super PACs

A relatively new phenomenon, super PACS proliferated following the January 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that said the government cannot restrict the spending of corporations, unions, and other groups for political campaigns, maintaining that it's their First Amendment right to support candidates as they choose. The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of money to be poured into political campaigns. It also dismantled the McCain–Feingold campaign-finance law that banned issue ads and soft money (funds contributed to the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and to the party committees in each state) in political campaigns.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

Super PACs Influential in Midterm Elections

The 2010 midterm elections were the first test of the effects of the Citizens United ruling—and the influence of super PACs. Some $80 million was spent by super PACs during the midterm election cycle. Republican candidates largely reaped the benefits of the PACs' largesse, and Republicans won control of the House. Democrats cried foul, saying the elections were being bought by deep-pocketed individuals and companies and questioned what the donors expected in return for their contribution. But it was not long before Democrats established their own super PACs. In the 2014 midterm campaign, 1,360 Super PACs raisded nearly $700 million, according to OpenSecrets.org.

The already lax rules governing Super PACs are riddled with loopholes. For example, candidates cannot communicate or coordinate with PAC organizers, but they can speak to a group of donors at a fund-raising event and leave the gathering before any planning or coordinating about fundraising occurs.

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert helped to educate the public about PACs, famously mocking them on his show, The Colbert Report. In fact, he created his own super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which collected more than $1 million. The PAC ran ads in South Carolina that took aim at Mitt Romney.

Democrats Jump on the PAC Bandwagon

President Obama was an early critic of the Citizens United ruling, calling it a "threat to democracy" and a "victory" for Wall Street and Big Business. He further criticized the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address, saying the decision would allow "special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limit in our elections." He went on, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

With Republican-backed super PACs eclipsing them in fund-raising—Karl Rove's two PACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, raised more than $325 million in the 2012 election season, Democrats felt they were left with no other option than to join the fray. Despite his condemnation of the 2010 ruling, Obama announced in February 2012 that he work with—but not coordinate with—Priorities USA Action, the Democratic super PAC organized to help Obama win reelection. He also said that members of his administration would speak at the PAC's fundraisers. The Ready for Hillary PAC, created to encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, raised about $15 million from 135,000 donors.

In May 2015, Clinton announced that she'll support Priorities USA Action, a Democratic Super PAC, during her presidential campaign. She's the first Democratic presidential hopeful to endorse the powerful fund-raising groups.

Despite the rule that candidates cannot closely associate with super PACs, the 2012 presidential campaign clearly illustrated that candidates on both sides of the aisle plan to push the limits of campaign finance regulations in future races.

—by Beth Rowen





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-relying-on-smuggling-antiquities-to-fund-terror/

ISIS cashing in on selling plundered antiquities to fund terror
By MARGARET BRENNAN CBS NEWS
September 29, 2015

See Gallery -- 17 photographs of mosaics and other beautiful Syrian artworks


ISIS funds itself, in part, by looting Syria's ancient treasures. On Tuesday, CBS News got the first look at ISIS' own records which were scooped up in a raid by U.S. special operations forces.

When ISIS financial kingpin Abu Sayyaf was killed by U.S. Special Forces last May, American soldiers made a startling discovery: hundreds of precious antiquities stored in his compound.

On Tuesday, newly discovered declassified documents show for the first time just how deeply ISIS relies on smuggling antiquities to fund its terror.

Abu Sayyaf was the group's top antiquities dealer. Receipts also show him to be a careful record keeper. Treasury officials told us transactions totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

"It was systemic, so not only do we see receipts, we saw an elaborate org chart, how the antiquities department of ISIL work, and it was a global operation -- it uses everything from Facebook to the dark web, so it was very organized, very comprehensive," the State Department's Richard Stengel told CBS News.

When asked whether it's a crime ring, Stengel acknowledged it is.

CBS News found evidence of this black market ourselves when we filmed undercover in Turkey this month. Two young Syrian smugglers offered CBS News ancient Roman mosaics they claimed they had dug out of the ground in Apamea.

It's of Syria's most important archaeological sites -- now riddled with robber holes.

"Looting is hard to stop. We want to shame the buyers, we want to take that, make that even more underground, and then find out who's doing it and then bring them to justice," Stengel says.

On Tuesday, the State Department unveiled a new tactic: the offer of a $5 million reward for any information that it can use to cut off this illicit trade. But policing the underground market is incredibly difficult.




“ISIS funds itself, in part, by looting Syria's ancient treasures. On Tuesday, CBS News got the first look at ISIS' own records which were scooped up in a raid by U.S. special operations forces. When ISIS financial kingpin Abu Sayyaf was killed by U.S. Special Forces last May, American soldiers made a startling discovery: hundreds of precious antiquities stored in his compound. On Tuesday, newly discovered declassified documents show for the first time just how deeply ISIS relies on smuggling antiquities to fund its terror. …. Treasury officials told us transactions totaled hundreds of millions of dollars. "It was systemic, so not only do we see receipts, we saw an elaborate org chart, how the antiquities department of ISIL work, and it was a global operation -- it uses everything from Facebook to the dark web, so it was very organized, very comprehensive," the State Department's Richard Stengel told CBS News. When asked whether it's a crime ring, Stengel acknowledged it is. CBS News found evidence of this black market ourselves when we filmed undercover in Turkey this month. Two young Syrian smugglers offered CBS News ancient Roman mosaics they claimed they had dug out of the ground in Apamea. …. On Tuesday, the State Department unveiled a new tactic: the offer of a $5 million reward for any information that it can use to cut off this illicit trade. But policing the underground market is incredibly difficult.”

Wherever there are wealthy individuals who would like to have a personal collection of ancient artifacts, there will be a black market. It’s similar in Africa where certain animals are being killed almost to the point of extinction over “medicinal” items like rhino horn. What I hate to see in this situation is that the archaeological treasures are irreplaceable, and they belong rightfully to the world, not to selfish collectors. They should be studied by archaeologists and then housed in a good museum for the public to view. These people doing the looting are only interested in their money value, and the private collectors in the personal prestige of owning something like that. Mankind should respect our heritage and save it for our children and their children.





http://www.catchnews.com/international-news/al-nimr-sought-democracy-will-saudi-arabia-give-him-death-today-1443415503.html

Al-Nimr sought democracy; will Saudi Arabia give him death today?
ALEESHA MATHARU @almatharu |28 September 2015

Just a few days ago Saudi Arabia was admitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council. And today the oil-fuelled kingdom is set to behead a young man.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr has been sentenced to death for encouraging pro-democracy demonstrations during the 2012 Arab Spring. He was just 17 then.

Outrage and solidarity

The young man's case has raised an international outcry. A group of UN human rights experts described it as a possible breach of the country's commitments to uphold international law.

Anonymous, a collective of hacker activists, reportedly shut down several Saudi government websites on 26 September. They then took to Twitter, using the hashtag #OpNimr, to oppose the execution.

In a statement, addressed to "King Salman and the Saudi Arabian government", activists warned: "An innocent young teenage boy has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia and we will not stand by and watch.

"13 Judges have already approved the death sentence of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, meaning only King Salman has to approve it. We cannot and will not allow this to happen."

#AliMohammedAlNimr was only 17 when he was arrested for pro-democracy protests

Some heads of state and celebrities have also voiced concerns. Last week, American comedian Bill Maher tweeted in al-Nimr's support.

The French president and prime minister have called on Saudi Arabia to abandon the execution. Jeremy Corbyn, the United Kingdom's new Opposition leader, wrote a scathing letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, demanding he call on Saudi Arabia to "commute the unjust and horrific sentence".

It was revealed two weeks ago that al-Nimr's appeal against the death penalty was denied. The Saudi authorities is now set to behead him, then strap his body to a cross and leave it to rot in public view.

Friends forever

Anonymous has demanded that the United Sates speak against this execution. But no prominent American official has spoken out so far.

The US, in fact, reiterated that the two countries were "close allies". State department spokesman Mark Toner said he was "not aware of the trial" when reporters pressed for his reaction. When asked about Saudi Arabia's controversial appointment to head a key UN human rights panel, he said: "We would welcome it. We're close allies."

The US and Saudi Arabia have been close for decades. Since 2010, the US has approved $90 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia - $2.2 billion of it in 2014 alone.

Rights record

Many of these weapons are now being used by Saudi Arabia in its invasion of Yemen. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have accused the monarchy of committing war crimes in the campaign, which has killed 2,100 civilians and displaced over 1.4 million.

Al-Nimr's execution would not be Saudi Arabia's first: Amnesty places Saudi Arabia third among the world's top five executioners last year, the US being No. 5.

Since 1985, Saudi Arabia has executed over 2,200 people for "crimes" including sorcery, witchcraft, adultery, and drug possession. Most executions were carried out in the form of a public beheading, and some by firing squads.




“Ali Mohammed al-Nimr has been sentenced to death for encouraging pro-democracy demonstrations during the 2012 Arab Spring. He was just 17 then. …. A group of UN human rights experts described it as a possible breach of the country's commitments to uphold international law. Anonymous, a collective of hacker activists, reportedly shut down several Saudi government websites on 26 September. They then took to Twitter, using the hashtag #OpNimr, to oppose the execution. In a statement, addressed to "King Salman and the Saudi Arabian government", activists warned: "An innocent young teenage boy has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia and we will not stand by and watch. …. Some heads of state and celebrities have also voiced concerns. Last week, American comedian Bill Maher tweeted in al-Nimr's support. The French president and prime minister have called on Saudi Arabia to abandon the execution. Jeremy Corbyn, the United Kingdom's new Opposition leader, wrote a scathing letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, demanding he call on Saudi Arabia to "commute the unjust and horrific sentence". It was revealed two weeks ago that al-Nimr's appeal against the death penalty was denied. The Saudi authorities is now set to behead him, then strap his body to a cross and leave it to rot in public view. …. Anonymous has demanded that the United Sates speak against this execution. But no prominent American official has spoken out so far. The US, in fact, reiterated that the two countries were "close allies". State department spokesman Mark Toner said he was "not aware of the trial" when reporters pressed for his reaction. When asked about Saudi Arabia's controversial appointment to head a key UN human rights panel, he said: "We would welcome it. We're close allies." …. Al-Nimr's execution would not be Saudi Arabia's first: Amnesty places Saudi Arabia third among the world's top five executioners last year, the US being No. 5. Since 1985, Saudi Arabia has executed over 2,200 people for "crimes" including sorcery, witchcraft, adultery, and drug possession. Most executions were carried out in the form of a public beheading, and some by firing squads.”

The human animal is given to barbarity, even though we are very clever in certain ways. Killing people for the crime of witchcraft simply shouldn’t be happening in this period of history. It is embarrassing that Saudi Arabia is near the top of a list of nations that execute prisoners, and that the US is only two notches down the line from them. This truly is depressing.




I’m sorry I didn’t get to more of the articles today. I had a pressing chore that took several hours. Now that I have medical appointments I will simply do as many stories each day as I’m able. Best to you all.