As a senior citizen of the state of Wisconsin whose family suffers from three serious cell-based diseases and who has been working with both private and public officials in support of public funding for stem cell research in Wisconsin, I was deeply disappointed when my Governor in his State of the State address looked our legislators and the citizens of Wisconsin in the eye and boasted that Wisconsin has stayed at the forefront of stem-cell innovation “because we kept politicians out of it.”
I have to assume that the “we” was referring to you and I the citizens of Wisconsin. Or did the “we” refer to his Administration? In either case, I predict that there will be a time in the not too distant future when the taxpayers and the health consumers of this state will deeply regret that the people and their representatives acquiesced and remained disengaged while the most critical health policy issues were left unaddressed.
How can the citizens of this state and our policy makers remain disengaged around a human health concern having to do with the essence of life itself? If not us – the citizens through our legislature - then who will decide? While I support our free market place and the critical role that private enterprise including venture capitalists and foundations will and must play if Wisconsin’s stem cell programs is to succeed, as a citizen I am not about to support anyone who advocates that citizens and their policy makers withdraw from the public square on this or any other vital public issue.
As much as I admire Dr. James Thomson and his team of talented and dedicated scientists, they nor UW-Madison university research community or the biotech/pharmaceutical industry CEOs, can be left to mind the people’s business relating to how best to fund stem cell research and to ensure that the taxpayers and future health consumers of this state’s needs and interests are fairly represented.
Corporate media is trying to distract us from this issue by framing it primarily an economic answer to all our problems. They would prefer that the citizen see the chief public benefit for their investment in terms of the trickle down effect and the promise of future job creation. While this sexy public benefit policy being dangled before us is very compelling and worthy indeed, it is one that is far too narrow and short-sighted.
Further allocation of public tax incentives and innovation grants must be accompanied with accountability and public benefit requirements, including intellectual property rights (ownership rules), public disclosure and conflict of interest safeguards. To continue to focus primarily around job creation outcomes and ignore the State’s present health care crisis is short sighted and irresponsible.
Now is the time for our policymakers to decide whether the miracle cures promised will be made accessible and affordable to Wisconsin families with cell-based diseases. The answer to this question must be reflected in the language of the state’s financial and tax research innovation incentives now being proposed? “Asking the grantees to do the right thing after giving away the farm is like asking the fox to cough up the chickens after giving him the key to the hen house.”
If Wisconsin truly is to remain at the forefront in its stem cell initiative, like California and many other states, we will set about immediately to fill the policy gaps referred to above. Without legislative leadership we should not expect that cell-based therapies and drugs derived from this research will eventually benefit all of us as health consumers and taxpayers?
Hopefully one year from now when our governor again gives his State of the State address he will be able to thank your legislators and mine for building a policy platform that will match the genius of our science and insure that Wisconsin’s stem cell program remains at the forefront of both stem cell and health care policy innovation.
Submitted to the Wisconsin State Journal 2/1/08
Friday, February 1, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
New Media and the Election
Wisconsin State Journal - Forum
‘New media’ enhance citizens’ involvement
The “new media” will greatly enhance the process of electing our next president because bloggers, MySpace and YouTube and single issue group e-mail listings have become important vehicles for generating political awareness and involvement.
This was seen in 2006 when non-partisan citizen groups organized to soundly defeat the attempt by corporate America to extend media consolidation. This successful citizen protest was carried out on a shoestring compared to the combined corporate resources arrayed against it.
These new media mechanisms have already begun to transform our democracy. While the traditional print media simply copy corporate-produced political news into the local newspaper like a template, this new media allows thousands of bloggers and citizen journalists to investigate and report.
Bloggers have both the freedom and tenacity to stay long enough with a single issue until its truth or falsity is clearly made known or public action is taken. Unlike the traditional press, which regularly editorializes on only one political perspective day after day and allows only a paltry number of differing citizen opinions, the new interactive journalism is a beehive of conflicting political news accounts.
Dr. Dhavan Shah, UW-Madison professor of journalism and political science who was quoted in Sunday’s Forum column could not be more wrong when he alleges the new media “doesn’t have the normal filters of political journalism.” Quite the opposite is true. The new media has thousands of filters for each and every political story while mainstream journalism increasingly presents only one view. This was best seen with the unanimous pro war perspective that traditional journalism provided the American people leading up to the Iraq War.
Those who are still have doubts only need to consider Ron Paul’s amazing presidential candidacy. Thousands of ordinary citizens have financially invested in Paul’s campaign. Thanks to the new media and the internet, the not-so-rich and the powerless can take heart about their new political fortunes.
‘New media’ enhance citizens’ involvement
The “new media” will greatly enhance the process of electing our next president because bloggers, MySpace and YouTube and single issue group e-mail listings have become important vehicles for generating political awareness and involvement.
This was seen in 2006 when non-partisan citizen groups organized to soundly defeat the attempt by corporate America to extend media consolidation. This successful citizen protest was carried out on a shoestring compared to the combined corporate resources arrayed against it.
These new media mechanisms have already begun to transform our democracy. While the traditional print media simply copy corporate-produced political news into the local newspaper like a template, this new media allows thousands of bloggers and citizen journalists to investigate and report.
Bloggers have both the freedom and tenacity to stay long enough with a single issue until its truth or falsity is clearly made known or public action is taken. Unlike the traditional press, which regularly editorializes on only one political perspective day after day and allows only a paltry number of differing citizen opinions, the new interactive journalism is a beehive of conflicting political news accounts.
Dr. Dhavan Shah, UW-Madison professor of journalism and political science who was quoted in Sunday’s Forum column could not be more wrong when he alleges the new media “doesn’t have the normal filters of political journalism.” Quite the opposite is true. The new media has thousands of filters for each and every political story while mainstream journalism increasingly presents only one view. This was best seen with the unanimous pro war perspective that traditional journalism provided the American people leading up to the Iraq War.
Those who are still have doubts only need to consider Ron Paul’s amazing presidential candidacy. Thousands of ordinary citizens have financially invested in Paul’s campaign. Thanks to the new media and the internet, the not-so-rich and the powerless can take heart about their new political fortunes.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Solution to Capital problems is campaign finance reform
Letter to the Editor, Capital Times Forum page/Voice of the People
I must say that I was dismayed after reading the political discussion in The Wisconsin Way’s position paper, “Wisconsin at the Crossroads.” I found this discussion lacking in candor if not disingenuous. I believe that many citizens will read this segment and feel disheartened by such a simplistic analysis of the central political problem facing Wisconsin. Are we really expected to believe that the single greatest problem at our state Capital should be understood and has to do simply with partisan gridlock and ideological inflexibility?
It’s not that “our elected officials are trapped in a political process that thrives on issue polarization.” Rather it’s you and I, the voters and taxpayers of this state, who are trapped by allowing the rich and powerful to own our lawmakers. Our legislators are doing just fine, thank you, by repeatedly staying in office owing to big fat contributions year after year.
Any fair and honest discussion of the present context and process of policy making at our Capital it seems to me must, at its center, be focused on the corrupt pay-to-play culture that exists there. What good would be accomplished if the people of Wisconsin, through a state-wide conversation and consensus, for example, should come to the conclusion that indeed corporations in Wisconsin should be taxed more and also by the community in which they are located?
This enraged citizen taxpayer believes that any solution that ignores the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform in Wisconsin will be a paper tiger and go the same way as most other such initiatives have gone. It will be little more than shifting the sand piles around because reform, without the people owning and controlling their government, is futile.
Respectfully,
William R. Benedict
I must say that I was dismayed after reading the political discussion in The Wisconsin Way’s position paper, “Wisconsin at the Crossroads.” I found this discussion lacking in candor if not disingenuous. I believe that many citizens will read this segment and feel disheartened by such a simplistic analysis of the central political problem facing Wisconsin. Are we really expected to believe that the single greatest problem at our state Capital should be understood and has to do simply with partisan gridlock and ideological inflexibility?
It’s not that “our elected officials are trapped in a political process that thrives on issue polarization.” Rather it’s you and I, the voters and taxpayers of this state, who are trapped by allowing the rich and powerful to own our lawmakers. Our legislators are doing just fine, thank you, by repeatedly staying in office owing to big fat contributions year after year.
Any fair and honest discussion of the present context and process of policy making at our Capital it seems to me must, at its center, be focused on the corrupt pay-to-play culture that exists there. What good would be accomplished if the people of Wisconsin, through a state-wide conversation and consensus, for example, should come to the conclusion that indeed corporations in Wisconsin should be taxed more and also by the community in which they are located?
This enraged citizen taxpayer believes that any solution that ignores the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform in Wisconsin will be a paper tiger and go the same way as most other such initiatives have gone. It will be little more than shifting the sand piles around because reform, without the people owning and controlling their government, is futile.
Respectfully,
William R. Benedict
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Stem Cell Debate is Needed
Have Wisconsin taxpayers been deprived of having a vigorous and diverse discussion regarding the future of Wisconsin’s embryonic stem cell research in our State? I think so! I believe one reason for this is the polarized, highly partisan, and special interest-owned state legislature. It is due to legislators’ eagerness to play it safe and stay in office versus fairly representing the diverse and complex needs of all the people of Wisconsin.
To date the legislature’s single flex reaction has been to try and criminalize perhaps the most important scientific discovery of our lifetime. Shame on our state legislature for its inertia and lack of policy leadership on perhaps the most important issue it will ever face.
Recently I attended a lecture sponsored by the Wisconsin Academy of sciences arts & letters entitled, “Tales from the Other Biotech Frontier” by Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin/Madison Law and Medical School. The subtext for this talk was how our policy makers here in Wisconsin can keep our state competitive. Charo had recently spent a year in California and informed us how this state “has become the world’s leader in stem cell research.” She referred to the state’s 3 billion dollar research program and how they plan to loan 300 million dollars each year over ten years to support stem cell research in California.
Charo reviewed the various stem cell stakeholder groups and the role that each of them played since the state’s referendum, Proposition 71, was approved by over sixty percent of the voters. Most of Charo’s talk was a provocative narrative of how a real democracy is supposed to work. All the actors had the opportunity to make their rights, needs and wishes known.
Stakeholders included the governor, legislature, taxpayers, women health groups, the religious community, the university community, biotech companies, patient and social justice activists, the LGBT community, people of color, and disabilities communities. What has played out over the past five years can best be described as how a diverse grassroots democracy is supposed to work when confronted with a very complex and potentially life changing issue.
Wisconsin has not had this debate. Perhaps now with James Thomson and JunyingYu’s latest stem cell alternative discovery ---using human skin cells in place of human embryonic stem cells --- the citizens of Wisconsin will begin talking over their dinner tables and with their neighbors about the tremendous speed with which biotechnology is developing and how it is likely to affect our lives and especially the lives of our grandchildren.
What accounts for the fact that there have been no stem cell policy initiatives from our legislature, including not a dollar, for even basic stem cell research? Should not the Wisconsin taxpayers insist on state policies to insure that research in Wisconsin is conducted in a safe and ethical manner and that public benefits, including affordable and accessible stem cell-based therapies, will follow?
Why should Wisconsin taxpayers pay multiple times for the benefits of stem-cell research? Should they pay for basic research now and again later for costly commercial therapies? Should they pay once when they employ a Wisconsin stem-cell research scientist and again when that scientist makes a major discovery? And, then again, when that publicly supported discovery results in a disease-curing commercial stem-cell-based therapy?
Shouldn’t Wisconsin taxpayers receive a payback if and when a revenue stream results from publicly funded research? Shouldn’t all Wisconsin taxpayers, including our underserved and uninsured populations, benefit from more affordable and accessible stem sell therapies?
And finally, why at the epicenter of embryonic stem cell research, where the first human embryonic stem cell was first derived, is there such a deafening public silence? Only through greater transparent discussions in the public square can we find the clarity and balance that we all seek between those areas where more scientific progress is still needed and areas where caution and perhaps enough human engineering is enough? In a great progressive state like Wisconsin, all the stakeholders, including especially our young people, need to come to the table and reason together.
To date the legislature’s single flex reaction has been to try and criminalize perhaps the most important scientific discovery of our lifetime. Shame on our state legislature for its inertia and lack of policy leadership on perhaps the most important issue it will ever face.
Recently I attended a lecture sponsored by the Wisconsin Academy of sciences arts & letters entitled, “Tales from the Other Biotech Frontier” by Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin/Madison Law and Medical School. The subtext for this talk was how our policy makers here in Wisconsin can keep our state competitive. Charo had recently spent a year in California and informed us how this state “has become the world’s leader in stem cell research.” She referred to the state’s 3 billion dollar research program and how they plan to loan 300 million dollars each year over ten years to support stem cell research in California.
Charo reviewed the various stem cell stakeholder groups and the role that each of them played since the state’s referendum, Proposition 71, was approved by over sixty percent of the voters. Most of Charo’s talk was a provocative narrative of how a real democracy is supposed to work. All the actors had the opportunity to make their rights, needs and wishes known.
Stakeholders included the governor, legislature, taxpayers, women health groups, the religious community, the university community, biotech companies, patient and social justice activists, the LGBT community, people of color, and disabilities communities. What has played out over the past five years can best be described as how a diverse grassroots democracy is supposed to work when confronted with a very complex and potentially life changing issue.
Wisconsin has not had this debate. Perhaps now with James Thomson and JunyingYu’s latest stem cell alternative discovery ---using human skin cells in place of human embryonic stem cells --- the citizens of Wisconsin will begin talking over their dinner tables and with their neighbors about the tremendous speed with which biotechnology is developing and how it is likely to affect our lives and especially the lives of our grandchildren.
What accounts for the fact that there have been no stem cell policy initiatives from our legislature, including not a dollar, for even basic stem cell research? Should not the Wisconsin taxpayers insist on state policies to insure that research in Wisconsin is conducted in a safe and ethical manner and that public benefits, including affordable and accessible stem cell-based therapies, will follow?
Why should Wisconsin taxpayers pay multiple times for the benefits of stem-cell research? Should they pay for basic research now and again later for costly commercial therapies? Should they pay once when they employ a Wisconsin stem-cell research scientist and again when that scientist makes a major discovery? And, then again, when that publicly supported discovery results in a disease-curing commercial stem-cell-based therapy?
Shouldn’t Wisconsin taxpayers receive a payback if and when a revenue stream results from publicly funded research? Shouldn’t all Wisconsin taxpayers, including our underserved and uninsured populations, benefit from more affordable and accessible stem sell therapies?
And finally, why at the epicenter of embryonic stem cell research, where the first human embryonic stem cell was first derived, is there such a deafening public silence? Only through greater transparent discussions in the public square can we find the clarity and balance that we all seek between those areas where more scientific progress is still needed and areas where caution and perhaps enough human engineering is enough? In a great progressive state like Wisconsin, all the stakeholders, including especially our young people, need to come to the table and reason together.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Unity of Madison Theatre
To: webmaster@madstage.com
Eric - Deenah Givens, Social Justice Justice Minister and myself (William R. Benedict), a member of Unity of Madison's Social Justice Advisory Council, met with Sarah Blake this morning regarding our plans to develop a small theatre group that would produce plays that would promote campaign finance reform and/or clean government.
We haven't officially named our group yet but for now we will simply call it "Unity of Madison Theatre." Our plans now call for calling for scripts relating to campaign finance reform.
Just want to let you know that Sarah discussed and highly recommended your site as an excellent resource for people like us who wish to start a new theatre. As we go along in the process we plan to use MadStage to help us recruit play participants, advertise and generally in whatever way that we can.
In my blog, I will include periodic postings on our theatre's progress, show dates, etc. I will also include MadStage's URL in my list of links so that when we join and advertise through MadStage it will be easy for my readers to contact us. I also hope that we can join and support this website.
Best regards, Bill Benedict
Eric - Deenah Givens, Social Justice Justice Minister and myself (William R. Benedict), a member of Unity of Madison's Social Justice Advisory Council, met with Sarah Blake this morning regarding our plans to develop a small theatre group that would produce plays that would promote campaign finance reform and/or clean government.
We haven't officially named our group yet but for now we will simply call it "Unity of Madison Theatre." Our plans now call for calling for scripts relating to campaign finance reform.
Just want to let you know that Sarah discussed and highly recommended your site as an excellent resource for people like us who wish to start a new theatre. As we go along in the process we plan to use MadStage to help us recruit play participants, advertise and generally in whatever way that we can.
In my blog, I will include periodic postings on our theatre's progress, show dates, etc. I will also include MadStage's URL in my list of links so that when we join and advertise through MadStage it will be easy for my readers to contact us. I also hope that we can join and support this website.
Best regards, Bill Benedict
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Restore religion to public square
Letter to the Editor
Wisconsin State Journal
As a citizen who is deeply concerned about ever growing voter apathy I found Bishop Morlino’s defense of his actions both refreshing and encouraging. With vacuous and expensive sham attack ads replacing a once vibrant political debate, it’s way past time when both right, left and mainstream religion once again join fully and vigorously in the public discourse.
In a society with ever growing political correctness both Bishop Morlino and Pope Benedict have been courageous in clearly stating doctrinal positions, for example, “there is one God…Christ Jesus” – and letting the chips fall where they may.
I become uneasy when I read that America’s religious fervor is becoming increasingly non-doctrinal and private. In such a climate differing ideas ---the heart of a vibrant democracy --- are lost from public debate.
According to religious sociologist Alan Wolfe, what increasingly matters to most Christians are not “ideas” but feelings and “having a personal relationship with Jesus.” If Pope Benedict and Bishop Morlino succeed in bringing their flocks back into the public square greater voter turnout and a richer democracy will follow.
Respectfully,
William R. Benedict
Madison, WI
Wisconsin State Journal
As a citizen who is deeply concerned about ever growing voter apathy I found Bishop Morlino’s defense of his actions both refreshing and encouraging. With vacuous and expensive sham attack ads replacing a once vibrant political debate, it’s way past time when both right, left and mainstream religion once again join fully and vigorously in the public discourse.
In a society with ever growing political correctness both Bishop Morlino and Pope Benedict have been courageous in clearly stating doctrinal positions, for example, “there is one God…Christ Jesus” – and letting the chips fall where they may.
I become uneasy when I read that America’s religious fervor is becoming increasingly non-doctrinal and private. In such a climate differing ideas ---the heart of a vibrant democracy --- are lost from public debate.
According to religious sociologist Alan Wolfe, what increasingly matters to most Christians are not “ideas” but feelings and “having a personal relationship with Jesus.” If Pope Benedict and Bishop Morlino succeed in bringing their flocks back into the public square greater voter turnout and a richer democracy will follow.
Respectfully,
William R. Benedict
Madison, WI
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Government Accountability Board Meeting Public Testimony
Question at Hand: The Qualifications of the new GAB’s Legal Counsel
My name is William R. Benedict and I would like to thank the members of the Government Accountability Board for allowing me to speak about the qualifications of the Board’s new legal council. As a father and grandfather who is committed to preserving our increasingly threatened democracy for future generations I consider this opportunity indeed a privilege and honor.
In addition to the formal qualifications which are already now in place for the legal council and which I clearly support, this morning I want to strongly support the need for a legal counsel devoted to clarity and pro-activeness as well as the need for a fresh face. I believe these qualities are necessary if Wisconsin is to reclaim its reputation for clean, open and accountable government.
Clarity, because enforcement is much more difficult when the general public remains uninformed, confused, fettered and disengaged from the enforcement process due to not having more complete, user friendly and readily accessible information on campaign contributions.
In a recent 2007 publication by the Brennan Center for Justice, entitled “Campaign Finance in Wisconsin” the authors report appalling Wisconsin performance results in an independent nationwide study. The investigators found the Wisconsin Election Board’s disclosure database was incomplete due to both electronic and more archaic manual reporting practices. Such incongruent and confounding information acted to make the data largely inaccessible and unusable to the public and therefore unacceptable receiving a grade of F for failing. Similarly, even when this information was presented in summary reports, the technical usability of the Board’s website was seriously lacking and received a D. Wisconsin received an overall grade of C- and was ranked twenty second for its disclosure system. This failure should no longer be tolerated.
In a very real sense the Board’s disclosure database is its number one weapon in defense of democracy in Wisconsin. The need for this information to be in user friendly form, readily accessible and transparent, complete and accurate is perhaps the Board’s number one priority. Without it, both the Board’s internal effectiveness, especially with respect to its prosecutorial function, and the public’s right to know, and its ability to engage corruption in whatever form, will remain seriously compromised.
Pro-activeness, because our previous two boards and their leadership, I believe, were too passive and indecisive, particularly in the enforcement of the Board’s laws, rules, orders and formal opinions. It should no longer be acceptable for the new Board or its legal council to continue sitting passively by, waiting for a concerned citizen or group to first gather all the evidence and file a formal complaint.
Rather the legal counsel should take the initiative and proceed when he or she believes that it is likely that a violation has occurred. Perhaps no more important corrective action could be taken to restore the public’s confidence in this new Board.
A fresh face - Most importantly, if the new GAB truly wishes to bring an end to business as usual at our capitol, the new legal council will not be encumbered with any baggage, including loyalties to previously failed practices or systems.
He or she will be a fresh face and bring along fresh ideas for insuring the integrity of Wisconsin politics. It’s clear that the old Boards and their leadership have failed and lost the confidence of the Wisconsin citizen. If the word “accountability” in the Board’s new name is to have any real credibility, it seems to me, the last thing the Board should do is retain the old leadership. When this personnel decision is viewed in the context of our recent corruption scandal along with the subsequent public disfavor and mistrust, there is no valid alternative.
Thanks again so much for allowing me to speak this morning. By your decision to hold this open public meeting you have clearly demonstrated and signaled to me and to all Wisconsin citizens that your trademark will truly be one of transparency, openness and equity. Thank you.
My name is William R. Benedict and I would like to thank the members of the Government Accountability Board for allowing me to speak about the qualifications of the Board’s new legal council. As a father and grandfather who is committed to preserving our increasingly threatened democracy for future generations I consider this opportunity indeed a privilege and honor.
In addition to the formal qualifications which are already now in place for the legal council and which I clearly support, this morning I want to strongly support the need for a legal counsel devoted to clarity and pro-activeness as well as the need for a fresh face. I believe these qualities are necessary if Wisconsin is to reclaim its reputation for clean, open and accountable government.
Clarity, because enforcement is much more difficult when the general public remains uninformed, confused, fettered and disengaged from the enforcement process due to not having more complete, user friendly and readily accessible information on campaign contributions.
In a recent 2007 publication by the Brennan Center for Justice, entitled “Campaign Finance in Wisconsin” the authors report appalling Wisconsin performance results in an independent nationwide study. The investigators found the Wisconsin Election Board’s disclosure database was incomplete due to both electronic and more archaic manual reporting practices. Such incongruent and confounding information acted to make the data largely inaccessible and unusable to the public and therefore unacceptable receiving a grade of F for failing. Similarly, even when this information was presented in summary reports, the technical usability of the Board’s website was seriously lacking and received a D. Wisconsin received an overall grade of C- and was ranked twenty second for its disclosure system. This failure should no longer be tolerated.
In a very real sense the Board’s disclosure database is its number one weapon in defense of democracy in Wisconsin. The need for this information to be in user friendly form, readily accessible and transparent, complete and accurate is perhaps the Board’s number one priority. Without it, both the Board’s internal effectiveness, especially with respect to its prosecutorial function, and the public’s right to know, and its ability to engage corruption in whatever form, will remain seriously compromised.
Pro-activeness, because our previous two boards and their leadership, I believe, were too passive and indecisive, particularly in the enforcement of the Board’s laws, rules, orders and formal opinions. It should no longer be acceptable for the new Board or its legal council to continue sitting passively by, waiting for a concerned citizen or group to first gather all the evidence and file a formal complaint.
Rather the legal counsel should take the initiative and proceed when he or she believes that it is likely that a violation has occurred. Perhaps no more important corrective action could be taken to restore the public’s confidence in this new Board.
A fresh face - Most importantly, if the new GAB truly wishes to bring an end to business as usual at our capitol, the new legal council will not be encumbered with any baggage, including loyalties to previously failed practices or systems.
He or she will be a fresh face and bring along fresh ideas for insuring the integrity of Wisconsin politics. It’s clear that the old Boards and their leadership have failed and lost the confidence of the Wisconsin citizen. If the word “accountability” in the Board’s new name is to have any real credibility, it seems to me, the last thing the Board should do is retain the old leadership. When this personnel decision is viewed in the context of our recent corruption scandal along with the subsequent public disfavor and mistrust, there is no valid alternative.
Thanks again so much for allowing me to speak this morning. By your decision to hold this open public meeting you have clearly demonstrated and signaled to me and to all Wisconsin citizens that your trademark will truly be one of transparency, openness and equity. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)