New NY 23rd

Isabelle Leyva and Simon McCormack, authors of an article for The New York Civil Liberties Union, ask “Does adding more police deliver results?”

In our shows, movies, and novels, they are our heroes in blue. To elected officials, they are the go-to response to complex, unmet social needs, from mental health care, housing, and supportive schools, to safe neighborhoods and more. Police will save the day. 

Or will they? The authors note:

• An analysis published in the journal, Criminal Justice and Behavior discovered that 66 percent of the crimes focused on in three popular police shows were murder or attempted murder. But a 2019 Vera Institute of Justice report found that fewer than five percent of arrests are related to serious violent crimes. 
• Police kill more than 1,000 people in America every year — disproportionately Black and Brown people. Between January and March of this year, there were just four days when police did not kill someone. 
• In New York, police often violently confront and stifle peaceful protesters. Officers too often target racial justice protesters while allowing white supremacist and far-right demonstrators to protest without interference.
• In New York City, the NYPD is central to the effort to destroy homeless encampments. This cruel initiative provides no long-term solutions for unhoused New Yorkers. Instead, it funnels people into notoriously violent and inhumane shelter systems, and makes their lives on the street even more difficult.
• Police also play a key role in reinforcing gentrification. Studies have documented heightened police enforcement in gentrifying neighborhoods. 

The article concludes:

It’s time we stopped asking police to be the simple catchall solution to so many complicated problems. We all want safe communities. But we know that adding even more police has a negligible impact on crime rates, and that there is no evidence that criminal system reforms or progressive prosecutors have fueled increases in crime. New York needs proven and effective public safety solutions, including better jobs, schools, homes, and health care — all of which would do more to lower crime rates than further relying on police. 

Isabelle Leyva is a Field Organizer,
Simon McCormack is a Senior Writer

What is known to us, the Statue of Liberty aka the “Mother of Exiles” is a symbol of immigration and opportunity that has graced our shores and her torch has been a beacon to all that seek refuge.  We have always been a nation built by and for immigrants—a melting pot where all can be free to raise families without the stringent constraints placed upon them from the lands from which they fled.

Sure not all that have come here to seek refuge have had our best interests at heart; undesirables have slipped through the cracks, it is the problem that every continent endured throughout the ages.  If it is a utopia you seek, then you will be discouraged for EVERYONE is in search of such a place.  But my utopia may not be the utopia you are seeking—see where I’m going?

At one time or another we all were immigrants if you traced your origins back far enough and your ancestors were in search of something better for their families, it is an inherent trait in all of us; always searching for a greener pasture.  You really can’t blame anyone.

Most people want or yearn for freedom, the kind of freedom that can be found in America, their utopia.  Immigrants come here for a better life now, much like they did back then and we embraced them with open arms, welcoming them into the bosom of society.  It is what we ‘advertised’ at Ellis Island and Liberty Island.

Immigrants are fleeing conflict, war, poverty and death—for the sanctity of their future generations.  They bring with them ideas, hopes and dreams; let them built upon them.  They open businesses, buy goods and services; attain higher education that might not have been afforded to them in the country they left behind.  The businesses provide jobs, their purchases provide tax revenue and the educated provide us with technology and much needed medical expertise.

Also immigrants before they have fled their country provided our military with much needed information related to language barriers and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice for helping our soldiers protect our freedoms in exchange for a chance to experience the freedoms we sometimes take for granted.  I think it’s a fair exchange and so do our military personnel.

Immigrants aren’t afraid of hard work; many perform the jobs that most Americans refuse—such as those in the agricultural arena, be thankful that they help farmers put affordable food on your table.

Are you aware that 4.2 million Hispanic owned businesses in this country collectively contribute over $668 billion to the American economy currently?  Overall immigrant owned companies right now employ one out of ten Americans and contribute north of $800 billion to the US economy and some of the most iconic companies such as: AT&T, Bank of America, Google, Ebay, Goldman-Sachs, all the way up to Yahoo were all started by immigrants.

We owe all of this to immigrants.  With what is going on in our country with immigrantsone has to question is the new Administration and the Republicans afraid of immigrants or are they simply worried that most immigrants vote Democrat?

You can read comments on this article that Dunkirk Observer readers wrote by following this link. 

This article was written by Cath Kestler, a nurse and Silver Creek resident and a friend of New NY 23rd

This past Saturday there was a packed house at the Town Hall meeting with Tom Reed;most of you will be thinking that I will launch on a personal attack on him, but I never thought I’d actually say this, he agreed with me on a question I asked regarding big pharmaceutical companies and the prices of drugs.

The question in particular was regarding the out of pocket prices that the consumer incurs when a drug isn’t covered under the formulary (the list of medications that the insurance company will cover the cost for).  In my research I came across one particular medication that I will not mention, but many are on this particular medication, if you have the ‘usual’ insurance coverage such as Independent Health or Community Blue the cost of that drug is $426/month; if the consumer has Medicaid the cost is $519/month; and if the consumer has no coverage at all the out of pocket expenditure is $709/month.  We both agreed that something must be done and I offered my assistance in a solution.

The discrepancy isn’t a small amount, is it the pharmaceutical companies or the pharmacies dispensing the medications?  Before asking my question, I did do my homework and this is what I found:

Taxpayers fund 85% of the basic research, yet at the end of the day when a drug is FDA-approved we, as Americans are paying at least twice the price for the medication as those outside of the United States.

Most of the drugs that have actually made it to market are made by a smaller company—they developed the medication and set the price for less than half of what the larger companies charge you for the medication.

When you hear about a company complaining about the cost of these medications, it simply boils down to this: the big company buys the small company and the cost of that company is actually built into the price of the medication that the bigger company puts onto the market for the consumers.  The smaller company already absorbed the cost of research and development and relatively the cost to make the drug is not very expensive.

The figure passed onto us, as consumers is inflated because it includes ancillary expenses, bloated salaries, bonuses, and other indirect costs not related to research and development, as well as an 11% compounded discount rate over ten years based on stock market speculations and returns on their capital investments.

Drug companies have a dual mission, they want to help consumers and at the same time line their pockets at our expense.

Critics of pharmaceutical companies point out that only a very tiny portion of the drug companies expenditures are used for research and development; the majority of their money is spent in marketing and administration costs.  You know the advertising revolution that has taken over the airwaves much to the dismay of healthcare professionals.

Doctors used to hold the key to the gate of prescribing medications for the consumer, pharmaceutical companies spent enormous amounts of money to get a doctor to write a prescription the medication of the moment.  It was taking too much time for the pharmaceutical companies to see the fruits of their labor and while they were hawking their wares it took time away from the consumers when they were at the doctor’s office to see the doctors.

By now the pharmaceutical companies grew tired of this process and they decided to cut out the middle man—the doctor and appeal directly to the consumer.  Get the consumer to specifically ask for the drug they were selling regardless of whether or not it was actually what the patient needed.  Those subliminal messages were working, consumers are asking for medication to make their life easier, or so they’re told by the flashy PR firms producing these commercials.

Today, pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars per year on ads aimed at the consumer and the faux reality that their medication can give you the lifestyle you want.  The Nielsen Co. estimates that there’s an average of over 80 drug commercials every hour of every day on American television.

Many physicians have banded together and are starting to fight back by expressing an n increased concern over the fact that consumers are making appointments and asking for medications that they have no reason to take other than the hope of sharing that bathtub on a hill overlooking the sunset in Napa Valley—it’s a smokescreen.  This is indirectly leading to the rising costs of healthcare that needs to be curbed.  Petitions are being circulated and physicians are voicing concerns over the lobbying power that big pharma and insurance companies hold and obviously they don’t have the best interest of the consumers involved, it’s the bottom-line.

Time will tell whether Congress can achieve some relief for their constituents in the very near future.  Tom expressed the same concerns I have and here’s hoping to see so positive movement for us in the near future.

.

Japanese people are very polite; they will not contradict a guest no matter how much they may disagree. This can easily lead to misunderstanding–when a Japanese host says yes, yes, the meaning may be NO, NO. Foreigners often won’t understand.

Doubtless Japanese and American diplomats understand this and other cultural differences between Americans and Japanese. Hopefully Prime Minister Abe does, but what about President Trump? If Trump hears yes when it means NO, he may be misled at the time and later feel that he was lied to. That’s dangerous. When Trump suggested that Japan shoot down Korean missiles, Abe may have known better but wouldn’t have said so.

Years ago I was in Japan with three others. Every day our host sent two cars to take us to the factory. Traffic was heavy, and we thought two cars were wasteful. The four of us suggested they send one car. Yes, yes our host insisted; he said he understood but seemed agitated–he meant NO, NO! The next morning and every morning after there were two cars.

Travel to Asia is draining, cultural differences unnerving, misunderstanding a danger. Discussions in Asian countries are better left to experts while Trump golfs.

This entry was posted in Trump and tagged Abe, Diplomacy, Japan, Trump. Bookmark the permalink.

Carlos Lozada, in a book review in the November 22, 2021 issue of The New Yorker, discusses Elizabeth D. Samet’s Looking for the Good War: American Amnesia and the Violent Pursuit of Happiness” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

Elizabeth D. Samet is a professor of English at West Point and the author of works on literature, leadership, and the military.

Lozada begins:

The terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001, supposedly launched a new kind of American war, with unfamiliar foes, unlikely alliances, and unthinkable tactics. But the language deployed to interpret this conflict was decidedly old-school, the comfort food of martial rhetoric. With the Axis of Evil, the menace of Fascism (remixed as “Islamofascism”), and the Pearl Harbor references, the Second World War hovered over what would become known as the global war on terror, infusing it with righteousness. This latest war, President George W. Bush said, would have a scope and a stature evoking the American response to that other attack on the U.S. “one Sunday in 1941.” It wouldn’t be like Desert Storm, a conflict tightly bounded in time and space; instead, it was a call to global engagement and even to national greatness. “This generation will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future,” Bush avowed.

Samet writes:

“Every American exercise of military force since World War II, at least in the eyes of its architects, has inherited that war’s moral justification and been understood as its offspring: motivated by its memory, prosecuted in its shadow, inevitably measured against it,” she writes in “Looking for the Good War: American Amnesia and the Violent Pursuit of Happiness” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux). A professor of English at West Point and the author of works on literature, leadership, and the military, Samet offers a cultural and literary counterpoint to the Ambrose-Brokaw-Spielberg industrial complex of Second World War remembrance, and something of a meditation on memory itself. It’s not simply that subsequent fights didn’t resemble the Second World War, she contends; it’s that the war itself does not resemble our manufactured memories of it, particularly the gushing accounts that enveloped its fiftieth anniversary. “The so-called greatness of the Greatest Generation is a fiction,” she argues, “suffused with nostalgia and with a need to return to some finest hour.” 

Lozada continues:

President George H. W. Bush, in expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, believed that he had also exorcised the demons of that bad war (the Vietnam war). “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all,” he exulted in a White House speech. This past summer, amid worries that Kabul 2021 would resemble Saigon 1975, President Biden declared, “There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States.” 

Should we see the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the light of the Second World War; is Putin Hitler, Russia Nazi Germany and Ukraine Poland? Samet writes:  “In a climate in which the pressures to sentimentalize are so strong and victory and defeat are so difficult to measure,” she writes, “it seems a moral imperative to discover another way to read and write about a war.” 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/29/the-cost-of-sentimentalizing-war-elizabeth-d-samet-looking-for-the-good-war

This entry was posted in War and tagged Elizabeth Samet, Lozada, Sentimentalizing War, WW2. Bookmark the permalink.

The Head of Household tax filing status lowers the tax rate of unmarried individuals with dependents. The dependents could be their under-age children, adult children with disabilities, or elder parents. Twenty-two million Americans used the Head of Household status in 2014.

According to the IRS, “If you qualify to file as head of household, your tax rate usually will be lower than the rates for single or married filing separately. You will also receive a higher standard deduction than if you file as single or married filing separately.”

Donald Trump’s proposed tax plan ELIMINATES the Head of Household option.  Under the Trump plan, that person will  have to file as a “single” tax status and use its higher tax rate. For example, using the 2017 Tax Tables the Head of Household filer with an adjusted income of $50,000 would be taxed at the 15% rate, or paying $7500 in taxes.  The same taxpayer using the Single  status would be taxed at 25%, or pay $12,500 in taxes.  That’s a $5000 benefit for the Head of Household filer, which would be lost under Trump’s proposed plan.

The following articles used other scenarios to explain the Head of Household situation:

Just an interesting note: According to the 2010 census, there are 2.6 times more unmarried females than unmarried males in the United States who have their dependent children live in their households. The census does not give gender information about adults with dependent parents.

Rep. Tom Reed is a member of the House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee, which makes recommendations to the House on all bills for raising revenue,

Rep. Reed pretending to read the Tax Code.

including taxation.  According to Reed’s website, he feels that  “The American people deserve a simple, fair tax code and we are committed to serious reforms.”

Ironically, last March Rep. Reed received a lot of positive press because he authored H.R. 4708, the Credit for Caring Act of 2016, which amends “the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a nonrefundable credit for working family caregivers.” He said in its Press Release  “We care about those who become caregivers for their aging parents, grandparents or other relatives. These families are making enormous sacrifices and are struggling to make ends meet. The expense of providing personal, at-home care can add up quickly.  It’s only fair that we support our caregivers.”

We also must remember that Rep. Reed was raised by his widowed mother who probably filed as the Head of Household and was grateful the benefits that status provided.

The chart below shows that over 38,000 (11%) of Rep. Reed’s constituents used the Head-of Household filing status in 2014.

Does Rep. Reed  still care for and support caregivers for their “enormous sacrifices”? Will he identify with the financial and emotional needs of single parent families? Does he realize the negative economic impact on our District’s businesses that having  38,000+ single parent families pay more Federal taxes?

Will he fight for the people of our district and support a change in the proposed tax plan, or will he fall in line with the GOP leaders to appease the new President?

Trump’s tax plan alters the tax brackets, increases the standard deductions, eliminated personal exemptions, increases child care breaks, lower business taxes and eliminates estate taxes (Has anyone ever personally known someone who has paid the estate tax?). The article “Will my taxes go up or down under President Donald Trump?” compares the present tax law to Trump’s proposal.

147003399

…, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.–Nancy Pelosi (see the citation for the context of Pelosi’s oft quoted remark)

I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care!–Barack Obama

You’ve heard a lot about Obamacare, as it’s come to be known.  You heard a lot about it in the six and a half years since I signed it into law.  And some of the things you heard might even be true.–Barack Obama

We care about ensuring access to quality, affordable health care so working families across America will no longer have to deal with the failed health care policies forced upon them. This is a plan that empowers individuals with choice. Having the freedom to choose what type of insurance you are provided is a cornerstone of this plan.–Rep. Tom Reed (for Tom, choice is the right to do without)

The GOP set out to destroy the Affordable Health Care Act as soon as it became law. Their chosen means was ridicule. They attempted to link it to President Obama whom they assumed would be an unpopular President. Obama eventually accepted, even welcomed that name. When to much astonishment Obama was elected to a second term, the effort to link Obamacare to the President collapsed, but the mockery of AHC continued.

The GOP relentlessly portrayed AHC as a failure and to some extent succeeded–many came to believe that the law was somehow flawed. The GOP believed that they could “repeal and replace” AHC with a law that would be popular, but they miscalculated–many of those, including Republicans, who looked at AHC with disfavor, really wanted something better. Now that the GOP has the responsibility and have proposed a replacement, AHCA, many who would lose valuable benefits are outraged.

President Trump may have recognized reality when he promised that his healthcare proposal would be wonderful. That intent ran up against reality, which Trump recognized when he admitted that “healthcare is hard.” One reason healthcare is hard for the GOP is that there is no consensus among them as to what responsibility, if any, the government has for healthcare. Many Republicans favor lassez-faire which assumes health care is a luxury–“you need no more than you can afford.” This doesn’t work for many.

The GOP is unlikely to design a satisfactory healthcare law, because they mostly reject principles (universal coverage, affordable for all) necessary for success. These tenets of Obamacare must be the basis for any satisfactory healthcare plan.

Reportedly, President Trump will use bully pulpit to counter conservative revolt over Obamacare replacement. This might work if only conservative Republicans objected to the Republican draft plan.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/20/remarks-president-affordable-care-act

https://reed.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reed-fights-choice-aca-changes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/03/08/daily-202-trump-will-use-bully-pulpit-to-counter-conservative-revolt-over-obamacare-replacement/58bfb74ee9b69b1406c75d4d

This entry was posted in Health Care, Trump. Bookmark the permalink.

This article, by Lee Marcus, is published here with permission of the author.

EXPLAIN IT TO ME, TOM

Children’s literature has a parable for our times in The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen. It goes like this: the emperor engages two clever but lazy weavers for a new suit of clothes. The weavers promise His Majesty a suit that will be invisible to anyone who is stupid, incompetent, or unfit for his position. They make sure that word gets out about it. When at last the emperor parades his new suit before his subjects, not one of them dares to admit that he or she sees no suit. Who wants to be called stupid? In the end, it is a child who cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

I remember as a child thinking how implausible this was. How does anyone deny what she sees with her own eyes?

Well, children’s stories are meant to be fantastic, so no harm done. But later in my childhood I began to hear stories from World War II. Something called a “holocaust,” involving another “emperor,” who decided to murder millions of his own people. He began by belittling those people. Calling them names. Accusing them of hating their country, of being selfish, of doing harm. He loved to regale the public with rhetoric invoking hyper-patriotism and hatred against minorities, especially Jews. Then when he felt he had sweeping acceptance, he began his murderous campaign, and the people looked the other way.

As a young person I was incredulous! How could the German people have allowed Adolph Hitler to murder millions of people in their name? It just wasn’t feasible. “Never again,” exclaimed survivors and horrified bystanders the world over. But for some, that sentiment morphed into something more comfortable: “It can’t happen here.” I believed it myself. The holocaust was so horrific, the German people so … what’s the word … gullible? Anyway, it obviously, certainly, unquestionably CAN’T HAPPEN HERE.

Except now, I think it can happen here. Over the weekend of July 13-14, we all suffered a tweet storm in which the president attacked four freshman congresswomen of color with the perennial racist trope “go back where you came from.” (All four are American citizens, three of them born here.)

A few days later we watched coverage of the president stirring up a crowd in Greenville, NC. He woefully misrepresented the speeches, the policies, and the motivations of all four of the women, singling out Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for the worst of it. The crowd loved it. They ended up chanting, “Send her back!”

This president is deliberately tearing at the fabric of our nearly-all-immigrant nation. In an article entitled, “Trump Goes All In On Racism” (July 15, 2019), Atlantic writer David Graham decries Trump’s “…willingness and eagerness to place racism at the center of his political platform in a run for reelection to the presidency.” The article led with this: “The president’s tweets are an invitation to a racial conflict that pits citizen against citizen, under the calculation that racism itself is a winning political strategy.”

Congress voted to censure the president for his racist remarks, but our local representative, Tom Reed, voted against the resolution.”Having developed a relationship with the president,” he said, “interacting with him firsthand, I am confident in telling you that I do not believe he is a racist.” (Buffalo Evening News, 7/16/19)

So I have a question for Congressperson Reed. What is a racist? Not, apparently, someone who tells people of color, “Go back where you came from.”

Mr. Reed, tell us then. What is a racist? And once you get that formula worked out, I’d like to see you tell it to the experts, in person. Tell it to an audience of African Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans. Go down to the “camps” at our southern border and explain to the refugees sleeping on concrete floors that our president is not a racist. Say it in the mirror, if you can keep a straight face. And, while you’re at it, explain it to your God.

-Lee Marcus

This entry was posted in Political, Uncategorized and tagged Lee Marcus, Racism, Tom Reed. Bookmark the permalink.

This article was written by  Michael Fitzgerald and published in his “WRITE ON” weekly Finger Lakes Times column. You can email him at [email protected] and visit his website at michaeljfitzgerald.blogspot.com.

Incumbent GOP Congressman Tom Reed’s last two re-elections were relative walks-in-the-park for the one-time Corning mayor.

Part of his electoral success came because the vast 23rd Congressional District gives him a big edge of registered Republican voters versus Democrats.

But the wins also were reflective of the weakness of his Democratic opponents who were chosen as logical candidates based on conventional political wisdom. While they pulled in votes from their party constituencies, they weren’t able to convince enough voters to cross party lines to crack the GOP balloting bloc.

The clarity that comes with hindsight suggests that Reed’s 2014 Democratic opponent — Tompkins County Legislature Chair Martha Robertson — was doomed from the outset because of her strong political identification with Ithaca, one of a handful of arguably liberal/progressive islands in the generally conservative congressional district.

And Democrat John Plumb, a U.S. Navy veteran from conservative Lakewood who ran in 2016, never held elected office and lacked sufficient political experience and organization.

This political navel-gazing comes as Donald Trump hits the 100- days-in-office mark of his administration. While the nation digests what the president has done — or not done — many anti-Trump activists are organizing to retake the House of Representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Tom Reed’s slavish devotion to Trump policies makes him an obvious target.

This spring Reed staunchly supported the hastily drawn GOP health care alternative to the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He kept that support even as the glaring shortcomings of the GOP plan became obvious and it collapsed so spectacularly.

He was hammered with questions at one town hall meeting after another, with constituents demanding specifics about how the GOP plan would be superior to the ACA. His answers were too vague to satisfy audiences.

But knocking this very well-financed congressman out of office will require a more creative strategy than relying on town hall- audience pique.

One might be to find a “blue dog ” Democrat to run.

The term comes from 1995 after some Southern Democrats in Congress formed a coalition following heavy Democratic losses to the GOP in the 1994 congressional races because they said they had been “choked blue” by their party’s liberal positions.

A blue dog Democratic candidate in New York would have to be socially and fiscally conservative enough to capture the votes of the growing number of Reed voters losing faith in his ability to represent their interests.

Former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown — now a newspaper columnist in San Francisco — is touting the idea nationally.

“I know Blue Dogs may not vote at all times with the Democratic mainstream. But they’re a darn sight better than Republicans,” he wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle last week.

“Get enough of them and you have a Democratic majority, which means a Democratic speaker.”

Another roll-of-the-dice approach might be to look at Finger Lakes activists, people who are fiercely fighting for popular causes.

Even among just three groups — We Are Seneca Lake, the Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition and the Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes — long rosters of potential candidates pop out who have demonstrated commitment to people, not profits.

Finger Lakes Times readers know the names like Peter Gamba, Katie Bennett Roll, Ken Camera, and Laura Salamendra — among many others.

Their dedication to a cause — or causes — has been routinely chronicled.

Could any of them best Tom Reed in a general election a year from November?

Who knows.

But conventional-wisdom candidates got left in the electoral dust in the last two outings.

Democrats need to quickly come up with some fresh candidates — whether “Blue Dogs” or activists — if they want any chance to wrest control of the House back from the GOP.

No plan of operations reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main force.–Helmuth van Moltke, 1880.

In his memoir, “Travels with Herodotus” Polish journalist, Ryszard Kapuściński tells the story of a Persian potentate, Xerxes, who seated himself on a throne to watch the naval battle of Salamis, which he expected his navy to win. This was a naval battle fought between Greeks and the Persians in 480 BC, which resulted in a decisive victory for the outnumbered Greeks. Xerxes would have had a scribe at his side to record which commanders and crews performed notably. As Xerxes watched, the Persians were defeated. He then packed up and went home.

Here we see Kim Jong-un watching a missile test. The similarity is evident. All is well if the test is successful; if not, Kim will go home and some will suffer for it.  Even if the test is successful, North Korean militarism may be prelude to disaster.

This entry was posted in War and tagged Kim Jong-un, Korea, Salamis, Xerxes. Bookmark the permalink.