Happy Independence Day

Uncategorized 1 Minute

The holiday brought to you by armed citizens.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

88 thoughts on “Happy Independence Day”

    1. You’d be surprised. 1/6 is the rallying point for many. Regroup, hold big, orchestrated rallies and long, stemwinder speeches. Keep scapegoats forefront. Threaten election officials.

      This may not work, of course, because most Americans are not suffering from starvation, persecution (religious or not), mass arrests, torture, confiscation and other truly real reasons for armed rebellion. Ours is driven by ideological myths of integrated suburbs, illegal labor that we are very dependent upon, Jewish bankers, non-existent welfare queens, and gangs of fat boys playing paintball. Oh, don’t forget Chavez inspired and coordinated election fraud.

      1/6 for the vulnerable is the first shot heard round the world. As in the martyrdom of Babbitt who was shot as she smashed through the last barrier between Congressmen and an armed, rabid mob chanting “hang Pence”.

      The best outcome will be for many of those who both assaulted and inspired the attack on the Capitol would be to watch the next 4th celebration from prison as they learn to behave as free, productive citizens lucky enough to be born in a great country.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. “NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT TRUMP”

          You brought him up with your obvious attempt to justify – even glorify – the sort of insurrectionist violence that he encourages.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Insurrectionist violence is sometimes required.

            Not to overthrow the results of a disputed election, that is better determined in the courts. but when there is no election and no court.

            Like

          2. That is what the right wing populists all insist.

            Forget 1/6, nothing more to see here.

            Forget the Big Lie.

            Forget his gangs.

            Trump is at the center of the divisiveness our country is going through. There is not an aspect of politics or policy that doesn’t have him looming largely.

            He is like trying to ignore a rainstorm while walking home.

            Your “armed citizens” remark, myth or not, is just another endorsement of the 1/6 assault. Elections don’t mean anything because Democrats always cheat, so “armed citizens” need to be reminded of the secession from England by modern day “armed citizens.

            The big difference between 1776 and 2020 is that the colonies were trying to secede, not overthrow the government. Now the right wing populists would overthrow our own elected government.

            I get a bit upset when people attack my country.

            But, you disagree obviously.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The importance of armed citizens as a matter of preserving our liberty precedes Trumps entry into politics by about 250 years, so it has nothing to do with 1/6 or Trump.

            That is your obsession, and it blocks rational discussion of other ideas.

            Like

          4. Well, keep your blinders on…much safer that way.
            Your supposition on guns is flawed in my opinion.

            “Why are you clapping your hands and singing Old MacDonald Had A Farm?”

            “Keeps the elephants away.”

            “There are no elephants here.”

            “See, it works.”

            Your supposition is based on what you perceive as dictatorships arising because the citizens were not armed.

            Yet you never put things into context with other vastly more influential reasons for authoritarian rule. Nor were citizens in some cases unarmed.

            Bumper sticker politics is not good policy, just good vote getters.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. You don’t think there is huge difference between European states and their governments, alliances, politics, royal families and the Great Depression.

            I am not saying we can’t own guns. But I think our obsession with them is causing us more problems than a possible future need for shooting people because of their politics.

            But I am not going to change minds, but when you bring this up, I will challenge it.

            The danger is right wing populism. Not because I say so, but many former democracies have fallen into that. Now this may sit well with the right because it is what they are playing for now.

            But a dictatorship is a dictatorship.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. You define “right wing” in a very odd manner.

            I think the greater danger is from collectivists of whatever flavor. That’s why I hold individual rights sacred. It is only when individual rights are seen as less important than the will of the majority that tyranny is possible.

            Like

          8. …” the will of the majority “…

            that will was exercised in November 2020. Yet the MINORITY attempted tp overturn the results of that election through violence.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Left and right populism are both appealing to the baser instincts. The both can devolve in a dictatorship. Be careful what you wish for. As you have said, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

            Today the GOP is the party in favor of overturning the last election just because.
            That would be the next step in autocratic rule.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Incessant whining?

            Until those who organized the attempted overthrow of the lawful government with violence are brought to justice the “whining” will continue.

            But, I understand your irritation. The behavior of your fellow “conservatives” throws a bad light on your ideas of intimidating the legitimate democratic government with threats of violence. It is one thing to daydream about violent insurrection, but the reality of violent people clubbing their fellow citizens with American flag poles is kind of ugly.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “The importance of armed citizens as a matter of preserving our liberty . . . ”

            That is ahistorical bullshit. The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the government, not to intimidate it. This message is reinforced in the Constitution which deals with only one crime – treason – which is defined as making war on the state.

            Like

  2. Armed citizens in an army. Along with help from Europe in weapons, ammunition, supplies, especially France who send Lafayette among others. UK was the “common enemy” for many.

    To paraphrase a recent president, we did not do it alone.

    And to parry those who feel history needs more myth than fact, knowledge is truly power in the story of nations.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Huh?

        Are you denying the fact that without help we would not have succeeded or, at best, the conflict could have much worse than 8 years of war?

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. I’m questioning why it is important to dilute the significance of Independence Day by noting “we did not do it alone.”

          Like

          Reply

          2. His comment is akin to the anti-CRT arguments. We only need to tell part of the story. Important aspects like assistance from France and other British enemies means little in the grand scheme of things to revisionists.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “We didn’t do it alone. What makes you believe that?”

            Its not a question of belief. It is a question of relevance.

            Like

    2. Certainly we had help from Britain’s other enemies, but would they have come to our aid absent our having committed ourselves in the field?

      Of course not. Absent our taking arms, they might have still had issues with Britain, but not on our behalf.

      Like

      Reply

      1. So, are you denying that the considerable help we received was not critical to our success?

        Any war is better fought by those with friends and alliances. Particularly in a David v. Goliath match up.

        Why is it so difficult for some to accept the fact that our history is checkered. We can’t possibly reconcile our differences unless we understand where they originated. And this is true no matter what nation.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “Why is it so difficult for some to accept the fact that our history is checkered.”

          Why is it so important for some to point out defects?

          Like

          Reply

          1. I love my house. But I also know that there are issues that if not addressed will only become worse. And some of those issues have history that goes back decades and knowing that, we can repair or change as needed.

            “Defects”. Let’s call it history.

            Greenwood was by most counts one of the worst incidents of racial violence we has ever seen.
            Yet, only recently has its history been revealed for a larger audience. Even clippings from the newspapers at the time had been removed before archiving decades later. Nothing was taught in schools.

            Why would that be a good thing?

            Liked by 3 people

          2. RE: “‘Defects’. Let’s call it history.”

            No. Let’s use language plainly. Independence Day celebrates a positive event. Why do some seem determined to emphasize negative events in such a context?

            Like

      2. It is one thing to start a fight in a bar, and quite another to win it without help.

        Of course there were principles involved in 1776. And it was a gamble by our elites to write the Declaration. The gamble worked and we were on the road to the grand experiment that has survived almost 21/2 centuries.

        What is most remarkable is that until this last election’s thwarted effort to usurp the Constitution by a sitting president the peaceful transfer of power was our hallmark in the world. The Constitution held even through an effort to destroy our nation in 1860. In effect, the Unites States welcomed back a prodigal child and our system held.

        In my mind, a true patriot will address flaws and try to correct them in the future. What has happened in the past cannot changed, but white washing wrongs is not patriotic. That is burrowing heads into the ground.

        South Africa has a lot of problems. But Mandela’s truth and reconciliation program helped keep a total bloodbath from happening. And that was truly a big effort to confront history as it was in order to set a foundation for the future.

        In my opinion, we could use something like that. The House investigation into 1/6 is our effort. It could have been much more potent with the original, agreed to deal. But powers on the right did not want to find the truth. Myths get bigger rallies.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

  3. RE: “The holiday brought to you by armed citizens.”

    A sobering thought.

    Ironic, too, given the high levels of anti-Americanism among today’s citizenry.

    Like

    Reply

      1. I didnt know all of those BLM street rioters, arsonists, looters, squatters, thieves and assaulters were at the capital on 1/6. I’m guessing you were with them.

        Like

        Reply

        1. No to both of your idiotic comments.

          January 6th, 2021, is the SECOND day that will live in infamy in this country.

          You and the supporters of that event are NOT patriots. You are treasonous bastards who deserve the same treatment benedict Arnold did.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Oh where does the laughing begin and the rolling on the floor follow with your reply. I’ll just make it short and say only a putz could come up with such hilarious crap.

            Like

          2. Laughing past the graveyard, then?

            Your comments bring nothing to the discussion ever. But stupidity must be addressed, so I call out your idiotic comments for what they are. BULLSHIT.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “High levels…”?

      Really? I might agree with that if you put 1/6 on top of any list you consider.

      More interesting, however, is to hear what you consider to be anti-Americanism.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. “ An American is a descendant of the mostly British men who settled the Thirteen Colonies and fought the War for Independence that is celebrated today.”

          So I am not an American?

          I admit that I have not seen that premise in writing other than blogs.

          Here is a rough breakdown of ancestry in 2013.

          https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

          That puts the descendants of colonial America at best 7-15% of our population depending if you include all English descendants. And if you count just those who fought in the Revolution, it is probably much smaller. And if you count descendants of slaves, you can add another 10-15%.

          So I suppose being American in your eyes and the opinion link is divided between mostly African and English since they were here first and you can bet many slaves or freed blacks had at least supply and servant roles in the Revolution.

          So BLM is a lot more American than the vast majority of Caucasians.

          So your link is defining a small sliver as American, with the general tone that the vast majority don’t deserve that distinction.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. RE: “That puts the descendants of colonial America at best 7-15% of our population depending if you include all English descendants.”

            Here’s the number Day gives in the comments: “As of 2015, there were 72,065,000 US citizens of majority British descent, or 23.3% of the total U.S. population.”

            According to his genetic theory, I’m not American, either.

            Like

          2. Numbers are tough to ascertain. Germans are the largest ethnic group in the US.

            But he still give short shrift to the Africans. These people were converted to Christianity, taught English and were instrumental in getting agriculture, in the South particularly, to be a viable international trade powerhouse.

            This creates a curious problem with regards as to how American the BLM movement is. If we go by the genetic roots, it doesn’t get more American.

            And, to stir the pot a bit, BLM is very similar to the opening lines of our own Declaration.

            Specifically:

            “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            Black Lives Matter…too.

            Now we can debate all day whether BLM has picked some dubious “martyrs”, but protesting for equal treatment in the pursuit of Happiness as well as the lopsided Life and Liberty applications is as American as, well, apple pie.

            We fought an 8 year war over those principles.
            And today we need a reckoning for the Americans we long ago decided we’re less than human beings until 1965.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “But he still give short shrift to the Africans.”

            Not really. The point is that Africans brought to America were, simply, not British.

            Like

          4. “So I am not an American?”

            In this essay from The Bulwark, Historian Joshua Tate from UNC, Chapel Hill explains the why that statement is true … in the eyes of 45’s “army”

            https://thebulwark.com/the-paradox-of-trumpist-patriotism/

            “But Ellmers’s real target is native-born Americans “who may technically be citizens of the United States but are no longer (if they ever were) Americans.” These pretenders “do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people.”

            Who are the real Americans then? The 74 million who voted for Trump in 2020.”

            Scary thought there are people referred to as “the Trumpist intellectual set” and this is the way they think.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Well, that’s just silly.

            The only people here I would say are not “Americans” would be those who explicitly reject the Constitution that their fellow citizens,

            Those would include neo-Nazis and other white separatists and Black separatists like the Rise of the Moors and the Nation of Islam.

            But I would only include those who self identify as rejecting Americanism.

            Like

          6. Keep in mind that Mr. Tait was quoting one of the “Trumpist intellectual set”, Mr. Ellmer.

            Yeah, silly. HAHAHAHA! I’m laughing so hard at the concept I am crying.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Interesting post. Here is what stood out to me:

            “David Azerrad, an assistant professor at Hillsdale College’s Washington, D.C. campus, gives American decline a historical context, pointing to two phases: first, the rise in the 1960s and ’70s of Black Power and women’s and queer liberation movements critical of white, Christian, mainstream America…”

            Now imagine if Jim Crow never existed. Would there have been a Black Power movement? How about the very real persecution and prosecution of the gay communities? If we could have accepted the notion that gays are both Americans and equal and as such, should be allowed to live in peace. Maybe the parades and court cases would never have been an issue.

            Conservatives may have actually made the bed of intolerance for sizeable number of Americans from which the protests and publicity arose. In a country that was born from revolt, when a minority becomes endangered by the majority, things get messy. After all, it is quintessentially American to make noise and rebel. Civil rights across the board arose from a lot of bloodshed because other Americans did not like their own fellow citizens.

            Time for the right to mature beyond the schoolyard level bullying and braggadocio and take a look at who is the real problem.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Have the Republicans ever been endangered or just whining incessantly.

            Threats of violence by the right are all they know nowadays.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Well, that’s just silly.”

            This is an easy question. An “American” is a person who was born in this country or who has gone through the process of being naturalized. None of those groups whom you would exclude are still Americans if they were born here or are naturalized. I would go so far to say that those who attacked the Constitution on January 6th are still Americans.

            “Americanism” is a sloppy and usually dangerous term without any real meaning.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. The context of the article was not who is an American citizen in a legal sense, it was more about who is an American in a philosophical sense. I know that’s harder to nit pick, but there it is.

            What I maintain is that merely being here does not make one an American. If you choose to reject Americanism, you aren’t one.

            Like

          12. “Yep. I will remind you of that from time to time.”

            What is worse is the majority being endangered by the minority. That too can get “messy.”
            Of course, Len was not referring to murderous violence by pinheads while you clearly are. Something you threaten on a regular basis.

            Again you use adherence to “Americanism” as a bellwether of who is an “American.” Uh, what does that mean?

            Liked by 1 person

          1. This brings up an interesting point.

            What determines nationality? If a person is raised in the US by Brits, taught English, converted to Christianity, subject to English laws and might even be the so, grandson or great grandson of a similar background does he become British? Or, more to the point of discussion, American.

            Vox Day assumes that birthplace and skin color are important. Are they?

            Modern relevance is the Dreamer issue. Common sense would dictate that a young child, infant even, raised in a culture not of his immediate parentage would become a part of that culture.

            Yet the supposition is that he would never change.
            And even if he does, that is not enough.

            For whom? It smacks of the “one drop” rule as a systematic method of racial animosity.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Vox Day assumes that birthplace and skin color are important.”

            You have that exactly backwards. He asserts that nations are genetic specifically to refute birthplace and skin color as definitive.

            Like

          4. Poor Mr. Roberts!

            He links to a blatantly racist piece which he says states his beliefs about who is a “real American” better than he could.

            But, my now pointing out the obvious fact that only a racist would approvingly link to a racist piece will surely offend him.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Those citizens were part of well-regulated militias and as such they underwent firearms training and whose arms and ammunition were kept in armories under lock and key for public safety.

    When you rise up to overthrow the tyranny you suffer under I expect you will get help from Russia and China just the way the French helped the insurrectionists of that time.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. While there were deposits of firearms and ammo in armories, private ownership of firearms was extremely common and most boys learned how to shoot and hunt from dad. When militias were needed, a few needed instruction but, by far, most men weren’t rounded up and sent to boot camp for issuance of a gun and training, most already had their private firearm and knew how to use it. You can’t rewrite history to make a phony anti 2nd argument.

      Like

      Reply

      1. ” . . . most already had their private firearm”

        Simply not true. You do not get your own history. Firearms in the 18th century were an expensive luxury. Only a minority of the population could afford them.

        There is nothing “phony” about the historical fact that the American Revolution was fought by well-regulated militias which – in peace time – registered and physically controlled the guns that they would need when called up.

        I was not arguing against the Second Amendment. I was arguing against the hooey that we owe our independence to “armed citizens.”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Um, the “hooey” is correct. Analysis of records show that at half to three quarters of colonial American homes had at least one firearm. Militias mostly did not issue firearms as most males were required to own a functional weapon if/when called for militia duty.
          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/news/va-vg-cw-guns2-0326-20160324-story.html%3foutputType=amp

          So, Happy Independence Day courtesy of the armed citizen.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I read that report from Willam and Mary that used probate and estates to determine gun ownership.

            https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

            There was a fair amount of extrapolation, but the main sources were estate resolutions.

            The highest percentages of gun ownership were among the wealthy, as much as 70%+. It dropped down to about 32% when the estates were valued lower.

            More owners were in the South. I guess slave revolts were a constant fear.

            My question was about the probability that most colonials didn’t leave estates. So how was the extrapolation done? There is some statistical detail and analysis in that report.

            Your link stated that the more common weapon was an early shotgun. It was cheaper and good for birds and small game.

            “Most eighteenth-century Virginians used their guns — particularly fowling pieces (we would call these shotguns) and rifles (though these were more expensive and less common), for hunting, which could have included dealing with pest animals on farms,”

            This report was in rebuttal to a book that said gun ownership was rare, maybe 18%. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The “armed citizens” were not armed. Finding the guns needed to prosecute the war was a mission critical task for the leaders. The outdated muskets and shotguns that some people had at home were not suitable.

            https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/exhibition/a-revolution-in-arms/

            “Success on the battlefield ultimately depended on the hundreds of thousands of arms supplied by France and Spain. Shipments of arms and ammunition from France began arriving in 1776 and continued for the rest of the war.”

            Thank you France!

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Sorry I’m late to this, but I was in the ER much of yesterday due to a pinched nerve.

            Dueling estimates on how many colonists owned firearms miss an important point, and that is that a minority of the colonists actually fought in the Revolution, less than 15%, especially early on. So, the more relevant question would be what percent of those who showed up were armed?

            That said, there were good reasons to replace the privately owned firearms as the war progressed with a standard issue musket.

            Primary among those is commonality of ammunition. Privately owned rifles and muskets varied in caliber from .25 to .71. It is difficult to resupply an army is you have to provide a dozen different size balls.

            Further, the reloading time for rifles is longer than for muskets, and rate of fire in set-piece battles is more important than long range accuracy. And, of course, fowling pieces and squirrel guns are not well suited for combat.

            Like

          5. I think the technical points that you make are accurate and valid. And you confirm the fact that the citizenry were NOT armed with “weapons of war.”

            As an aside, what is usually left out of our white-washed history is that the “Revolutionary War” was more in the character of a civil war. There was no ethical or moral justification for the years of deadly violence. There was no “tyranny” worthy of the name. It was the Have Nots rising up against the Haves lead by ambitious hotheads. The “Patriots” were traitors as Ben Franklin understood and stated so pithily. But they – with foreign interference – prevailed and they got to write the history.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. So, you’re a Tory?

            Most revolutions are justified with principles but are really based on economics. The American Revolution was no different. Britain was quite skilled in cronyism and exploitation of colonies.

            Like

  6. I have been questioned about why I am trying to throw cold water on the Fourth.

    Here is a thought.

    Most religions, if not all, have some sort of observance wrapped around the idea of atonement. The Jews have Yom Kippur and it’s a holiday with family and community rituals as well as a time for serious reflection. Try to make up for slights, wrongs or other foibles in connection with other people or behavior in general. (I think I have that about right, do I Adam.)

    Does that take away from the celebratory significance?

    July 4 is a holiday and is celebrated by gatherings, fireworks and retail sales. But that does not mean we shouldn’t use this day to reflect on what works and doesn’t. Nor should we paint over how we behaved as a nation for 2 1/2 centuries.

    Patriots want to accept the good and repair the bad. But we can’t repair what we don’t know.

    IMHO

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. RE: “Nor should we paint over how we behaved as a nation for 2 1/2 centuries.”

      Perhaps I should employ your way of thinking in my own life. When my wife next has a birthday, I shall use the occassion to remind her of her faults. After all, I love her dearly.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Gotta love your twisted gun lover logic.

        Bringing and displaying your guns at a political protest is the only way to prove how peace-loving and non-violent you are.

        Yeah, right.

        Actual decent and peaceful people with a little common sense see such a gathering very clearly for what it is – the threat of violence if demands are not met. In other words – terrorism.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You’re projecting again.

          It is your party that seeks to use force(albeit through the surrogate of government) to advance its agenda instead of peaceful persuasion.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Laughable bullshit.

            And not in the least responsive to my reporting your past very silly claims about these political gatherings by people carrying guns.

            What you call the use of force through “surrogate of government” is what I call the legislative process established by our Constitution.

            “Peaceable persuasion?” Where? In the streets? Carrying guns? Stupid!
            Persuasion happens in the legislature and when persuasion fails then the votes are counted. There is no other “peaceable” possibility.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Then you’re back to the 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

            Our form of government places limits on the lusts of the majority.

            Like

          3. “Our form of government places limits”…

            And the filibuster is NOT enshrined in the Constitution the way the Senate gives two representatives from each state. So not only does the minority get greater representation, they also get to change the rules. (And I say that regardless of which party is in the majority.)

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The Senate makes its own rules and can end the filibuster if it chooses to.

            But it would be a very bad idea.

            Remember that your party will not always have the majority. Were there no filibuster. Obamacare would have been gone in Trump’s first week. We would have radical shifts in policy every time the pendulum swung.

            A small drag on the majority, especially slim ones, avoids a chaotic and unpredictable legal climate.

            Like

          5. I agree with it being a bad idea.

            However, the obstructionists in the Senate (regardless of D or R) need to stop the power plays and start governing. I know you believe in limited government. I get that and kind see it being partially ideal. But too many are just obstructing to obstruct.

            There are things that the government IS responsible for. Infrastructure comes to mind. McConnell is promising a brutal fight against the bipartisan deal worked out and endorsed by the Problem Solvers Caucus. People need to stop trying for the perfect because the perfect is NOT going to get passed.

            Like

          6. “Our form of government places limits on the lusts of the majority.”

            Lusts? Funny and revealing choice of words.

            But, sure, indeed it does and nobody says it doesn’t. Which is why your citing the two wolves and a sheep aphorism is completely lame. Besides, it is you people who threaten – and now turn to – actual violence when you do not like the “peaceable” outcomes.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. You can’t be serious. Most Republicans, elected and electors, think the attack on our Capitol and our Constitution was a better idea than a peaceful transfer of power.

            Sorry, but 1/6 has enormous relevance when you toss out crap like that.

            IMHO

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “Were there no filibuster. Obamacare would have been gone in Trump’s first week”

            Uh, the decisive vote on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act was not on cloture. It was on a straight up and down vote on which John McCain famously did the right thing to the everlasting fury of the Trumpkins. His vote (along with that of Murkowsky and Collins) defeated repeal 51-49 taking the final vote away from Pence.

            If you are going to invoke history, best to get it right.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment