Month: July 2013

The force feeding torture at Guantanamo can stop–if the President wants it to

by David Atkins

The President’s defenders commonly argue that the President would close the prison at Guantanamo Bay if he could have his way and allow for civilian trials in the United States, but that Congress won’t let him. There is something to be said for that argument. But short of that, there are many issues related to Guantanamo that due fall within the direct purview of the Executive Branch. The appalling force feeding of hunger striking prisoners is one of them:

A federal judge who rejected a legal bid by a Guantanamo prisoner seeking to block his force feeding there during the Ramadan holiday is calling on President Barack Obama to confront the issue of whether the practice violates international norms.

In a ruling issued Monday (and posted here), U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler said a law passed by Congress strips her of jurisdiction over claims relating to the treatment of detainees. However, she quickly turned her attention to Obama.

“Even though this Court is obligated to dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore lacks any authority to rule on Petitioner’s request, there is an individual who does have the authority to address the issue,” Kessler wrote.

The judge noted that in May, Obama declared: “Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. . . Is that who we are? Is that something that our founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is stronger than that.”

Kessler said a resolution to the force feeding situation is within the president’s reach.

“Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that ‘[t]he President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….’ It would seem to follow, therefore, that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority—and power—to directly address the issue of force-feeding of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” she wrote.

The President can, in fact, step in to stop this. Will he? And if not, how are we to judge the sincerity of his other claims about the shameful legal and moral black hole that is Gitmo?

.

Never give up, never give in

by digby

Jesus H. Christ:

The House GOP is apparently making big plans for another debt ceiling hostage-taking, and this time they’ve got a strategy to demand big budget cuts from President Obama and the Democrats. According to the National Journal, House leaders are working on a “menu” of budget-slashing offers to Obama in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling for a short, medium or long period of time. Their template is Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget – the budget so unjust and biased against the poor that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops took time out from restricting women’s rights to criticize the Ryan plan.

House members reluctantly voted to raise the debt ceiling in January promising to come back with a strengthened hand on behalf of budget cuts next time around (which will probably be the end of this year). So House Speaker John Boehner is reportedly meeting with Ryan and other conservatives like Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, who boasted about their talks to the National Journal.

The key points:

For a long-term deal, one that gives Treasury borrowing authority for three-and-a-half years, Obama would have to agree to premium support. The plan to privatize Medicare, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Ryan budget, is the holy grail for conservatives who say major deficit-reduction can only be achieved by making this type of cut to mandatory spending. “If the president wants to go big, there’s a big idea,” said Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

For a medium-sized increase in the debt-limit, Republicans want Obama to agree to cut spending in the SNAP food stamp program, block-grant Medicaid, or tinker with chained CPI.

For a smaller increase, there is talk of means-testing Social Security, for example, or ending certain agricultural subsidies.

…Even at the smallest end of the spectrum — another months-long extension of debt-limit — there is talk of pushing back the eligibility age for Social Security by an equal number of months.

That’s from Joan Walsh. Read on here.

They’re bragging about this.

If there has ever been a time for the president and the rest of the Democrats to illuminate for the American people just how ridiculous this deficit reduction bullshit is, it’s now. The numbers are on their side. Not that austerity has ever been a good idea. But now the Dems have a chance to reset and do the right thing: refuse to even consider any more deficit reduction and tell these lunatics to keep their grubby mitts off of Medicare and Social Security in no uncertain terms.

Will they do it?

.

QOTD: Conor Friedersdorf

by digby

Here, in this great article about this latest example of the “shaming of the shrill”:

I am mystified by the “privacy moderate” who yearns for a debate about the surveillance state without anyone being so transgressive as to leak the information without which there would be no debate.

This makes no sense to me either. How can you have a debate about secret programs if nobody reveals the secret? It’s daft.

I do think Friedersdorf misses something obvious in his analysis, however. Many of the elites take this position simply because there are lots of personal/professional reasons for not wanting to be associated with the shrill. It was ever thus.

BTW: I still think Chris Hayes explains the phenomenon as well as anyone.
.

The free market rejects GOP gun policies

by David Atkins

When incompatible ideologies collide:

As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.

During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures — in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee — took effect last week.

But already, EMC Insurance Companies, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage.

“We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company,” the letter said.

In northeast Indiana, Douglas A. Harp, the sheriff of Noble County, offered to deputize teachers to carry handguns in their classrooms less than a week after 26 children and educators were killed in a school shooting in Newtown, Conn. A community member donated $27,000 in firearms to the effort. School officials from three districts seemed ready to sign off. But the plan fell apart after an insurer refused to provide workers’ compensation to schools with gun-carrying staff members.

It’s almost as if the people who make their living deciding what is safe and what is dangerous, think that turning schools into the OK Corral might be a reckless, crazy idea. The only question that remains is whether Republicans will abide by the will of the invisible hand, or insist on ideological purity?

That should be fun to watch.

.

The chief judge of the FISC is obviously a basket case. Good thing he’s leaving

by digby

If this is true, retiring judge Royce Lamberth is a poor delicate soul who was much too sensitive to be on the FISA court. In fact, he lost his reason entirely and should probably get some professional help:

Lamberth, a hulking Texan, began to cry as he described a secret briefing about a terrorist threat to the District that he received as a FISA judge. “My wife and friends live here,” he said.

Being on the FISA court, he said, was the most important job of his career. “I think a judicial function as significant as this should be in a courtroom in a traditional judicial building,” he added.

I’m pretty sure Lamberth must be on the verge of a breakdown of some sort if this left him crying. Whatever you do don’t tell him about this chart. He’ll revert to the fetal position and never be able to leave his bed.

In the last five years, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (that’s including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above from the Economist shows, that’s considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning.

And be sure to keep this from him or he could have a permanent break with reality:

Since 9/11, the Brady Campaign tells us, there have been an estimated 334,168 gun deaths* in the United States, a figure that includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional shooting deaths. The total is 100 times larger than the toll of September 11, 2001. Each year, since that day, approximately 30,000 people have been killed by firearms in America. Yet there has been no cry for state or federal policies of prevention over punishment, no loud call for a proactive rather than a reactive approach to gun violence. Imagine how different America would be today if those figures tolled for acts of terrorism instead of acts of gun violence

Royce Lamberth was the chief judge of the court that’s decided, in secret, how elastic the constitution has to be to keep the boogeyman at bay. And he is obviously living in some fever dream that makes him cry when he thinks of the danger his family could be in from a terrorist attack.

This is exactly the kind of irrationality that’s turned this country into a bunch of pants-wetting little children who are willing to let “Daddy” do anything to make them feel safe. Well, except not enough to try to stop the epidemic of gun violence.

And yet, I would imagine that all the Village is wringing their hands over the horrible threats that might befall Royce Lamberth’s wife and kids — and them — if we don’t use every police state power at our disposal to stop it.

This is literally insane. 

.

Still studying the autopsy, desperate for another cause of death

by digby

I’m still hearing a lot of talk among the chattering class about how the GOP is going to compete nationally with just white voters. The most recent Big Idea, is this one I wrote about called “Waiting for Perot.”)

Today Benjy Sarlin at MSNBC analyzes another reason why this is such a hard task for the GOP to wrap its mind around: basically it means they would have to completely throw out their economic philosophy.

Here’s the alternate theory: If Latinos demand a government that helps working people, the implication isn’t that Republicans should write them off. It’s that Republicans should help working people.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is one prominent evangelist for this approach, even if he has virtually zero buy-in from Republicans of any stripe. The key to his diagnosis is that both Latinos and poor whites are ditching the GOP for the same reason: stagnant wages, higher costs of living, booming health care expenses, and few Republican policies that address them.

“For all his faults, Bush understood that his party couldn’t win over Hispanics—or any economically-vulnerable constituency—without substantive as well as symbolic overtures,” Douthat wrote in an April post.

Pre-election polls of Latino voters in 2012 showed that immigration lagged far behind economic concerns in their list of priorities. That’s changed since Congress began debating the issue in 2013—the same Latino Decisions poll this week found immigration surging to the top of the issue list—but some Republicans think the old trend might return once the legislative battle is over.

The RNC’s own autopsy of the 2012 election stated that the “perception, revealed in polling, that the GOP does not care about people is doing great harm to the Party.” But while the same report recommended immigration reform to deal with the GOP’s Hispanic problem, it failed to suggest anything more than rhetorical changes to address the plutocrat problem. Many of the party mega-donors pushing immigration legislation are doing so because they think it will prevent Congress from redistributing their wealth downward. For now the call to override them is mostly limited to a few heretics here and there.

Policy changes from the “tack left on the economy” crowd might include adjusting the tax code to boost family take-home pay at the expense of tax breaks benefiting the wealthy, offering an alternative to Obamacare that would actually subsidize health coverage for the uninsured, and placing a stronger emphasis on education. Some suggest a more populist stand against free trade.

Why can’t Republicans just revamp their economic policies and pass immigration reform at the same time? Skeptics argue legalizing undocumented immigrants over time would add at least some net Democrats, since even the most optimistic strategists think Republicans winning a majority of Hispanics is unlikely in the medium term (keeping them in 60-40 range is the more modest goal). There’s also concern that passing reform wouldn’t actually be the end of the issue. One former GOP Senate leadership aide sympathetic to Douthat’s thesis suggested that Democrats could still run on speeding up the legalization process, especially if Republicans demand a longer list of “triggers” that have to be met along the way.

“Politically, there’s no upside to doing it,” the former aide said.

Right. But lets not pretend that one of the other reasons there’s no political upside is that the base will have a meltdown — and who knows what tea partying freakshow they might get behind in protest.

It also seems to me is that they would still have to dogwhistle racism in order to give these white working class voters some reason not to vote for the Democrats. After all, if it’s tax breaks at the expense of the wealthy, health care and education, it’s not as if there isn’t a party already offering that and doing it with more credibility than the Republicans can offer. So, the only reason they could give for not voting Democratic would be the old “we’ll keep the wrong people, if you know what I mean, from getting the same goodies you deserve.” And once you do that, you’re not going to get the Latinos and you’re probably going to chase off at least some of those white working class voters you need to vote for you.

They have a problem and it’s called the GOP base. Until they figure out a way to convince those folks that they have to compromise everything they’ve been told for 40 years are sacred conservative principles, they’re stuck. As well they should be. They’ve spent billions on this propaganda, creating an entire industry of wingnut welfare queens promoting this bilge. And at some point they apparently convinced themselves that everyone believed it — even those their cramped philosophy has explicitly relegated to second class status. Ooops.

.

ORCA: a different kind of whale watching

by digby

Oh, goodie. More military technology being put to civilian use:

According to MIT’s Technology Review, there are plenty of sociological similarities between insurgents and American street gangs. “In the last 10 years or so, researchers have revolutionized the way military analysts think about insurgency and the groups of people involved in it,” explains the Review. “Their key insight is that insurgency tends to run in families and in social networks that are held together by common beliefs.”

So it makes sense that the insights gleaned by Army intelligence could help out police officers at home. That hunch was confirmed on June 28th, when a group of West Point researchers published a paper that details how a similar software is being used to track gang violence.

The software is called Organizational, Relationship, and Contact Analyzer, or ORCA, and it groups people in a particular community by their known relationships, as well as their arrest records. Based on the algorithm, they can predict whether a particular person is likely to be a gang member; It’s also able to map “corner crews,” which operate hyper-locally, and “seed sets,” or individuals who are highly influential.

For this particular study, ORCA was tested on a three-year history of 5,400 arrests. Based on those numbers, it revealed 11,000 relationships, created a network map of 468 members belonging to about 20 gangs. The analysis is continuing through this summer in a “major metropolitan area,” though they won’t name which one. Eventually, the software could become ubiquitous in police stations nation-wide. It seems that crime, just like business, always comes down to your relationships.

The good news is that the government would never allow all that surveillance information they’re collecting on Americans and storing for future use to be used for the purpose of discovering whether someone is “likely” to be a criminal based on his or her “associations.” Because the constitution.

Certainly, the fact that the FBI is the go-between on all the data collection should not make anyone suspect they might want to use the information for purposes other than terrorism (oh, and we now know, nuclear proliferation, hacking and espionage.) It’s not as if gangs could be connected to “narco-terrorism” or anything. That could never happen.

Also too: the militarization of the police continues apace.

h/t to @bmaz.

Patriarchy on the rise?

by digby

From Guttmacher:

In the first six months of 2013, states enacted 106 provisions related to reproductive health and rights; issues related to abortion, family planning funding and sex education were significant flashpoints in several legislatures. Although initial momentum behind banning abortion early in pregnancy appears to have waned, states nonetheless adopted 43 restrictions on access to abortion, the second-highest number ever at the midyear mark and is as many as were enacted in all of 2012.

However, this year is notable also for positive action on other reproductive health issues in a handful of states, with important new provisions enacted to expand access to comprehensive sex education, expedited partner treatment for STIs and emergency contraception for women who have been sexually assaulted.

Read about sexual and reproductive health and rights in the states (updated each month).
Read about the current status of state policies (updated each month).

But hey, at least it isn’t as bad as 2011 — so far. And guess what?  Only three of the states who’ve done this are in the South (and that’s if you count Texas as part of “the South”)

In the first six months of 2013, legislators enacted 43 provisions aimed at restricting access to abortion. Although this is significantly lower than the record-breaking 80 restrictions that had been enacted by this point in 2011, it is the second-highest total on record (see chart below).

Early in the 2013 legislative year, it appeared that anti-abortion activity would focus on banning abortion early in pregnancy, either by declaring that personhood begins at the moment of conception or by banning the procedure outright. Indeed, provisions banning early abortion were enacted in two states in March alone: First, the Arkansas legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Mike Beebe (D) to ban abortions occurring more than 12 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period; in May, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the law. Later in March, North Dakota enacted a ban on abortions occurring after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which generally occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period; although a legal challenge has been filed, the law is scheduled to go into effect in August. 

Although the momentum for banning early abortion appears to have slowed, the same cannot be said for bans on abortion later in pregnancy. Legislation to ban nearly all abortions performed at or beyond 20 weeks postfertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period) has been enacted in Arkansas and North Dakota this year. (Notably, these two states also moved to bar abortion early in pregnancy). These provisions are based on the spurious belief that the fetus can feel pain at that point of development. Including Arkansas and North Dakota, bans on abortion at or after 20 weeks have been enacted in 10 states, while an eleventh, Arizona, bans abortion at 18 weeks postfertilization; enforcement of three of these provisions has been enjoined pending legal challenges (see State Policies on Later Abortions). In addition, the Texas legislature is continuing a high-profile debate on a similar proposal, and a measure that would ban abortion at or after 20 weeks nationwide was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in June, although it has no chance of becoming law.

Moreover, several states returned to familiar territory and approved a plethora of restrictions that, while stopping short of banning abortion, would nonetheless significantly hamper women’s access to the procedure.

Five states imposed targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) in the first half of 2013. These laws are designed to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion and make it impossible for clinics to remain open (see TRAP Laws Gain Political Traction While Abortion Clinics—and the Women They Serve—Pay the Price). Alabama and North Dakota enacted laws that require providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, effectively giving hospitals veto power over clinics’ ability to provide services. This brings to seven the number of states requiring abortion providers to have hospital privileges, although two of these laws are not yet in effect and enforcement of two is blocked pending the outcome of a legal challenge (see Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers).

Ohio has long required abortion providers to have an agreement with a hospital allowing them to transfer patients needing emergency care. In June, Ohio adopted a new provision prohibiting public hospitals in the state from entering into these transfer agreements, which will make it difficult for some clinics to remain in operation. Including Ohio, nine states require abortion providers to have transfer agreements, requirements that do little to add to existing patient safeguards ensuring hospital care in the event of an emergency.

In addition, Alabama approved new standards for abortion clinics that are essentially the same as those required for ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), even though the latter provide procedures that are more invasive and risky than abortion. Indiana, which had already required sites where surgical abortion was performed to adhere to standards similar to those for ASC, extended these requirements to apply even to sites where no surgical abortions, but only medication abortions, are performed. Virginia, meanwhile, finalized regulations to implement its 2011 TRAP law that requires clinics to meet stringent standards equivalent to those for ASCs. Including these new requirements, 26 states require abortion facilities to meet the same standards as those required for ASCs.

Four states limited provision of medication abortion by prohibiting the use of telemedicine, which is rapidly becoming a widely used tool for expanding access to health care, particularly in rural areas (see Medication Abortion Restrictions Burden Women and Providers—and Threaten U.S. Trend Toward Very Early Abortion). Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi enacted laws that require the physician prescribing the medication to be in the same room as the patient, bringing to 12 the number of states that prohibit the use of telemedicine for this procedure, although enforcement of the provision in Wisconsin has been enjoined by a state court (see Medication Abortion).

Arkansas and Pennsylvania moved to limit coverage of abortion in the health exchanges that will be established under the Affordable Care Act. Including these new provisions, 22 states have moved to restrict abortion coverage available through state insurance exchanges (see Restricting Insurance Coverage of Abortion).

States also adopted several other provisions designed to reduce access to abortion. These include measures that require a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound (Indiana); require a woman to undergo testing to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is audible (Ohio); extend the amount of time a woman must wait to have an abortion by excluding weekends and holidays from the days counted toward South Dakota’s 72-hour waiting period; and allow health care providers to withhold information about a woman’s pregnancy if they are concerned that it might lead her to consider abortion (Kansas and Montana).

(And lest you think any of this is really about saving the precious babies, they’ve also slashed the living hell out of family planning money.)

You’ve got to love federalism. It’s always been the last bastion of the supremacists.

Meanwhile, proving it’s not just a “local” issue get a load of this from Burnt Orange Report reporting on the latest in Texas:

[N]ow anti-choicers have their opportunity to rally with their own event tomorrow evening. However, they have decided to import their strength from out of state. For a group that claims to represent the vast majority of Texans on this issue, it’s interesting to see that they refuse to rely on their own in-state resources. Anti-choicers thought it would be better to bring in out-of-state speakers like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and TV personalities like The Duggars (also from Arkansas) to display true Texas values.

On top of that, the organization Students for Life is bussing in anti-choice youth supporters all the way from Washington, DC through four states along the east coast to Texas this week.

The right is afraid of not bringing in the same numbers as us, so they are pulling in resources across the country to combat our grassroots efforts to stand for reproductive rights.

Five out of the nine primary speakers are not from Texas. This includes the Huckabees, the Duggars, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Jeanne Monahan of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. These are all primarily Washington interests who have no previous history of working in Texas.

Funny, because the right always seems to complain about “Washington interests,” right?

They’re going to put on quite a show.

By the way, if anyone thinks the Duggars and their pals are in any way “mainstream” get a load of this Quiverful wedding. It’s almost a bad as the purity balls.

Democracy, freedom and people power as lazy shortcut words

by David Atkins

I wonder how everyone who celebrated the people-powered ouster of Morsi via military coup feels about the recent massacre of unarmed pro-Morsi demonstrators by the Egyptian military?

As of this writing, accounts of the death toll are varying wildly, but the basic fact of the massacre is unchanged.

Keep in mind, I have no love lost for the Muslim Brotherhood or the Morsi government. In fact, I despise both and wish them the worst. But I do think it’s important to recognize that they were, in fact, democratically elected in a free and fair election; that it was people-powered protest that requested a military coup to oust said democratically elected government; and that the people-powered coup is now resulting in the killing of unarmed pro-Morsi demonstrators.

The Right tends to have a funny notion that free markets and democracy go hand in hand. They are wrong. The left often has a funny notion that popular protest goes hand in hand with human rights and democracy. That’s also wrong.

What’s important is to recognize the fundamental principles that should govern the relationship of people to one another and to their environment. No race should oppress, much less enslave or murder, another race anywhere on the planet. Women should have the same rights as men, everywhere on the planet, with access to contraception and reproductive choice. Income inequality should not exceed certain thresholds anywhere on the planet. By the same token, government should not suffocate entrepreneurship and innovation of products that benefit consumers. Scientific inquiry should proceed undiminished by superstition, but closely bounded by ethical watchdogs. Protections for climate, environment and endangered species should be applied everywhere on the planet for the benefit of current and future generations.

All modes of governance and all theories of change should be evaluated by how well they achieve those and other similar goals. Democracy, people power, imperialism, and freedom itself are all secondary code words, too often loosely and lazily used as proxies for more fundamental goods.

By their fruits you shall know them. So far, democracy has tended to lead toward expanded human rights and freedoms. It’s a useful tool for achieving those things, but not without its shortcomings–shortcomings that require constitutional liberalism to protect minority rights and other important principles. People power can lead to good or ill, depending on how it is used. The same can be said both of free markets and of government intervention in markets. Too much of either can be a bad thing. Intervention can be a force for good or ill, depending on where it is done and how.

In politics and human affairs, process matters less than results. Good results usually depend on good process, but the benefits of any given process should be judged not on their intrinsic value, but on the results they achieve.

.

Drones among us

by digby

I’m afraid only traitors wouldn’t want armed unmanned drones flying around over their heads?

According to a 2010 Department of Homeland Security report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) suggested arming its fleet of drones with “non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize TOIs,” or targets of interest, along the nation’s borders. Currently, none of the agency’s 10 domestic drones is weaponized; the recently passed Senate immigration bill, which would require a minimum of four additional drones, stipulates that those be unarmed as well.

The report doesn’t exactly rise to the level of proposing drone strikes against Arab Americans “sitting in a cafeteria in Dearborn, Michigan,” as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) postulated during his 13-hour drone filibuster in March. But it’s sure to fuel the concerns not only of border residents and immigration reform groups but of privacy watchdogs and anti-government protesters paranoid about domestic surveillance.

Jennifer Lynch, an EFF attorney, told the Atlantic Wire, “This is the first I’ve seen any mention of any plans [from a federal agency] to weaponize any drones that fly domestically.” However, local law enforcement agencies have been considering arming drones with the same weapons used in riot control—rubber bullets, tear gas, bean bag rounds. The CBP report didn’t specify the weapons it has in mind.

Ok, I know everyone’s going to roll their eyes and tell me that this is no big deal because we already arm police and the border patrol and this is just another weapon not something intrinsically bad.

Fine, fine. But I just have one question: why do we need this then? If this is just another weapon in the arsenal, I’d really like to know why these people want to use them. Is there a reason why the usual rubber bullets, electric shock, bean bag rounds etc aren’t efficient enough? Will we really be better off if they can deploy them from unmanned drones flying overhead?

I’d like to know. Because the way it looks to me, they just want some new expensive toys and they want to try them out on people. And I don’t see why they should be allowed to do that without a very, very good reason. After all, we’re denying people food stamps and meals on wheels right now. (Also too: police state.Not that anyone cares about that.)

Speaking of drones and the police state, be sure to check out Marcy Wheeler tonight on Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd.

You can listen here. Call in number is: 646-200-3440

.