cmaukonen's picture

    The Roadblocks to Progressivism - Small Town America

    By cmaukonen on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 7:47pm |



    Most people are not aware of the fact that initially FDR's New Deal programs did not help minorities much and that they were just as rife with Jim Crow as the southern voting laws.

    At the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, racial and ethnic minorities needed New Deal assistance the most; but no one initially received less. Most early New Deal relief and recovery programs routinely excluded or discriminated against minorities. This was true for a number of reasons. First, the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) depended on the support of segregationist southern Democrats in Congress, who controlled the key committee chairmanships. Second, most New Deal programs were administered by local officials beholden to entrenched local interests and prejudices. Third, the depression gave priority to economic recovery rather than reform. And finally, previous poverty and powerlessness had left blacks and Mexican Americans with little or no political leverage. Thus, the labor codes of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) tolerated lower wages for minorities; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) benefited landlords at the expense of farm tenants and laborers; the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) maintained segregated work camps and kept minorities out of training programs that would lead to their advancement; the Works Progress Administration (WPA) ended eligibility for aliens who had not applied for U.S. citizenship before 1937, which cut off Mexicans and others (including Filipinos, even though the Philippines was a U.S. commonwealth) from the job program; the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) encouraged residential segregation; and neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Social Security Act made any provisions for domestics or farm laborers, whose ranks were disproportionately composed of racial minorities.

    Even some charities would refuse to help or serve Blacks during the depression. At the onset of WWII the discrimination continued with few Blacks or other minorities being accepted into the military or being hired in defense plants or other areas. And sometimes being fired to make positions for white workers.

    Discrimination in employment persisted throughout the World War II for African Americans and other minorities. Prior to the war, many blacks found jobs as hotel and train waiters and porters along with a handful of other unskilled positions. During the war, limits to the range of jobs open to African Americans remained in place. As one report noted, the position of the employer "in most instances has been guided by what he feels is an adverse attitude of his employees or the public who patronize his place of business." Thus, blacks generally were excluded from jobs in cafes and restaurants. Some worked in hotels, such as the "full staff of Negro bus boys" that one hotel had recently hired in 1945. But many Portland hotels used more workers of Filipino descent than blacks. And department stores resisted hiring African American employees in jobs other than as maids and janitors, citing the general feeling that "the hiring of qualified Negroes in jobs other than of a service nature would not meet the approval of the public." White employees also provided resistance as a report noted:

    After WWII the blacks that were hired once again being fired to make positions available for the returning white workers. A lot of this had been rectified with the civil rights movement, especially in the south. But eve though it is common to equate racism and bigotry to the south, With images of lynchings and white cigar smoking southern cops, northern racism was just as entrenched and maybe even more so. Just look at this map of Hate Groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center. And these are the extremest groups. There is institutionalized racism in the north that most still do not talk about.

    So it would seem as though the nation itself had an attitude that African Americans were inferior. And if you look at some of the laws that were in existence in the northern states, African Americans were not supposed to ride on streetcars; African Americans were not supposed to ride on steamers. The whole idea of Jim Crow and segregation of the races really originates in the North. African Americans couldn't vote in most states, even if they owned property. So the exclusion and the [disfranchisement] was already there. The concept of democracy seemed to be something in the nation at that time that was for white people. And it really relates to this concept of white nationalism, that no matter how poor you are, no matter what situation you're in, if you're white, then you are far better off than the wealthiest person of African descent.

    And to a large extent it still exists today. LBJ when he signed The Civil Rights Act was supposed to have said "We have just lost the south for a generation". Johnson was a naive optimist. With the civil rights act, he had lost most of white America for perhaps 10 generations. I use to live up in North East Ohio and outside Phillie and know where of I speak. Once you get away from the cities, racism and bigotry is still alive and well and most of the areas are lily white. And not just against Blacks but Latinos, Native Americans and even some Amish.

    The attacks were always done by groups, not by individuals. The incidents were viewed as simple mischief, no matter how severe the offense, Byers said. "They call the Amish `clapes' and the attacks or thefts are known as claping," he said. "Several individuals talked to us about how their uncles or fathers had done it as young men. We think it may go into several generations, but the interviews are still continuing."

    This is what progressives are fighting. This is what will make it nearly impossible to get any real progressive programs passed. Because these are the people who will fight you tooth and nail to prevent it just like they have been fighting Obama. It's not just that they don't like change, it's that they won't like any policy that would cause their white towns and neighborhoods to change. And it's not that they hate entitlements and safety nets, it's that they hate these safety nets helping those the deem beneath them. This is why Reagan's "Welfare Queen" statement played so well in these areas. And it still does.

    It's popular for those on the left to give European countries as examples of progressive and enlightened policies but they conveniently forget to notice that these polices were passed by people and for people of the exact same ethnic and cultural background. Make no mistake had this not been the case these policies probably would not have been passed as a lot of these countries are just as racist and bigoted as we are. Just look at how France has been treating Muslims and Roma. And how Sweden has treated it's immigrants.

    This is what the left is up against. This is the reality of America and legislating civil rights and equality does not change behaviors or attitudes for they are generational and passed on. Only when people finally realize that these racist and discriminatory attitudes carries with it personal negative consequences will these attitudes change. And as Michael Lind in Salon points out, bashing them over it only makes them more entrenched, resentful and determined. So instead of denigrating these people and dismissing them, the left has to present their ideas in a way they can relate to personally. How will it effects them and their families, their businesses and their friends and leave the minorities out of it completely. It's simply a major turn off.

    Comments


    Unemployment numbers are comprised of those that are in the job market for the past 30 days. It does not include those that have not been in the job market in the last 30 days: people who have given up looking; those that have gone off unemployment because it has run out. One solution to unemployment is "High Speed University" check it out
     


    by rosehaynes (not verified) on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:03am

    Thanks for this blog.

    First because over the past year the accomplishments of FDR and his team has become highly romanticized and idealized.  While great things were accomplished it was not the comprehensive world of gumdrops and rainbows.  The racism and discrimination you point out is just one example. 

    Second because even though there is great suffering among the people today because of the current economic downturn, there has always been segments of the nation who have been left behind the general prosperity of this country.  The fact that Lyndon Johnson had to initiate the Great Society was because (1) the New Deal and the post-WWII boom did address all of the ills of society and (2) most of the enjoying the rising standards of living in America had forgotten about these misfortunates, never knew they were there, or just plain didn't care. 

    Unemployment is at 9% and Americans are enduring a catastrophic suffering, but at 5% all is well. Even among those who do sincerely care about the poor, I believe there a deeply engrained cultural view that those who are chronically living in poverty "want to be poor."  So it only when those middle class people who really do want to work suddenly can't find a good job does the situation become worthy of constant attention and rantings.

    Third we are still fighting the battle for the Great Society in 2011.  The division is reflected in our political parties and the divisions within the parties, including the current battle swirling around the deficit, deficit spending, and the debt ceiling.

    Things have changed since the early 60's, including major demographic changes, that has altered the battle (including making the attacks more subtle in nature so as to show their true nature). 

    There is part of me that wants to say that putting the blame on "small town" America is a little offbase.  Of course, being in Indiana right now, it does resonate with me.  Leave Indianapolis (or the college towns) and everything that is wrong with the Republican party's constituency and everything wrong with the Democratic Party's constituency (i.e. bluedogs or nothing) is on blatant display.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:11am

    the New Deal and the post-WWII boom did address all of the ills of society and (2) most of the enjoying the rising standards of living in America had forgotten about these misfortunates, never knew they were there, or just plain didn't care.

    This is true for the kids of the baby boom generation but I would say not the the baby boom generation themselves as their parents and grandparents went through the depression of the 30s and WWII with it's rationing etc.

    I believe there a deeply engrained cultural view that those who are chronically living in poverty "want to be poor."

    As Scotty would say "That's a terrible over simplification." There are those who believe that but also those who are fiercely independent and do not live an affluent live style and those with this attitude that are more the Frank Burns type.

    We also have now at least one generation of folks that we did not have many of when I grew up. Those who are very well off but not necessarily rich. Those making high 6 figured salaries whose parents were also very well of in a similar (inflation adjusted) income brackets. That have little family history of what it's like to have to do without.  

    Even those that were in a similar (inflation adjusted) income bracket that my parents knew, did not live ostentatiously but rather closer to the way they remembered when they grew up.

    There was an article a while ago - in Huffington I think - about some professor who made in the mid 6 figure range and claimed he did not feel rich. It was then pointed out that the reason for this was he was living well beyond his means. With the amount he was spending on sending his kids to The Best Private Schools, the way too expensive house, way to expensive car and the amount he was stashing away in his retirement account. 

    What was even more telling in this story was that he felt he was entitled to  live in this manner and when challenged was quite contrite about it.

    I would bet that he was the very epitome of those in this class.

    Unfortunately nearly all of congress and the president fall in to this category.  No personal history to relate to how it is to just make it or live modestly.

    Which is were the baseless racism comes in. Too many people see him as the type cast black guy and he is far from that. On the contrary, he is your typical upper class guy from a typical upper class family who happens to be black but fits in perfectly with all those other upper class people he has around him. With as much in common with a black street kid as Boehner has with Jethro Bodine.  Which is why his polices are directed to those sorts of people.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:09pm

    This is true for the kids of the baby boom generation but I would say not the the baby boom generation themselves as their parents and grandparents went through the depression of the 30s and WWII with it's rationing etc

    If this was totally true, then there would have been no need for documentaries like the 1960 documentary Harvest of Shame. Moreover, if this was true, then this whole generation would have embraced the Great Society when LBJ pushed it forward.  In a way you are contradicting your entire blog with this statement. 

    And some of my first memories of people talking about how the poor want to be poor and railed against government handouts were from my grandparents, who by the way were able to rise from their agriculture-based poverty in the midwest through government jobs, including work at Hanford site during WWII.  And who were living on their government union pensions at the time.

    They were also the ones who exposed me to racism.  I still remember the shock one summer vacation when my brother and I came back from the store with our new "wrist rocket" sling shots and my grandpa leaned back in his chair and said "in my day we called them n- shooters."  Luckily PBS's Big Blue Marble had more influence on me than my grandpa.

    I did have in mind the current cultural landscape when I wrote about attitudes toward poverty.  The children of the baby boom generation definitely have a greater sense of entitlement to a luxurious lifestyle than their parents.  But the issue it seems to me is not the socio-economic class of the people, nor their own personal expectations about what they and their children are entitled to.   Rather the issue is one in which we no longer see our nation, to use the term used above, through the lens of our particular "tribe," but rather to see ourselves as one tribe, or one nation.  Or better yet, to see all living creatures as one tribe on a big blue marble.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:27pm

    Racism was endemic across all class lines at the time so you really cannot equate that with ones  economic class.

    If I understand correctly what you are saying then is that we are a mixture of tribes, with which I agree. I was thinking of a cast system but that does not really fit for we have chosen the cast our selves so tribe comes closer to the point.

    I do not remember people associating as much - in face very little - based on economic status like there is now. Suburbia was a post WWII phenomena and now we have closed gate communities which I do not remember there being. Gate residences for the rich yes.

    All of this has made us even more disconnected.  not a good thing at all.

     


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:44pm

    We are definitely becoming more disconnected.  The blogosphere has been both part of the problem and part of the solution (currently I am in a cafe where I am one of five people, all of us on our laptops, staring at the all-mighty screen (a subtle allusion to Genet) )

    But going back to the title of your blog and what I saw as the gist of the blog, a key barrier to the country going from where it is (point A) to where progressives would like it to be (point B) is the provincialism of "small town" America. 

    Where I am at in Indiana, most of the big wig mucky mucks of the community would be, on a socio-economic scale, more akin to mid-management executives in the big cities.  And there is definitely a classism and caste system at work.  But what has been a key barrier from a local grassroots perspective in dealing with poverty and racism is the pervasive attitude that the way we have always done things must be the right way since that is the way we have always done it.  One has to walk on egg shells when talking about "best practices" from other communities, because as I have heard said point blankly "well, we're not that community.  We're different.  So I don't care what worked there." 

    It is also a community that has experienced over a decade of continued economic hardship with the loss of the high-paying union manufacturing jobs.  It was never an incredibably wealthy community, but even more so. And yet trying to wrestle people from their "people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and "if they want to work, they'll find a job" attitudes has been like pulling teeth.  Even as their friends and families have been thrown out their jobs.

    I could go on about the racism facet of the community (just recently had cross burning on an African American family's lawn), but it comes down to those in these "small town" areas being isolated to new ways of looking at the world, whether they are on the farm, in the upscale houses around the golf course, or the middle class family struggling to make ends meet.  In other words, provincialism.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:44pm

    That pretty much says it all right there, trope.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:19pm

    no no no...we need more words!  As Guildenstern says: "Words, words, words.  They're all we've got to go on."


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:40pm

    HAHAHA...well I have decided to do a blog on provincialism but it will have to wait. I am very busy at the moment.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 3:02pm

    The internet has been a real growth mechanism for me. I lived in a VERY small town for 25 years, and had little interaction with people who had a broader vision of the world.

    Since discovering TPM, and now Dag, my horizons have broadened considerably, and since I took the time to read and learn and discuss instead of just criticizing, and getting to "know" the people I interact in cyber-space with, my world view has changed a lot... I am a very different person than I was 3 years ago.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:04am

    "[I] know where of I speak. Once you get away from the cities, racism and bigotry is still alive and well and most of the areas are lily white.... This is what progressives are fighting. This is what will make it nearly impossible to get any real progressive programs passed. Because these are the people who will fight you tooth and nail to prevent it just like they have been fighting Obama. It's not just that they don't like change, it's that they won't like any policy that would cause their white towns and neighborhoods to change."

    Since this is not talking about 1937, then unless it can be substantiated, it should not be allowed. How are these racist comments any more tolerable than racist comments   accusing /complaining of African Americans, Latinos or other people based on their race (or on their view of other racial groups)?

    The author knows these things? Where is there a recent film or recording of the events, including the views of varied racial groups for the sake of validating it scientifically?

    Fairness is a two-edged sword. A complaint of racism containing a racist tone is at best just unsubstantiated complaining, and not proof. And, in fact, it's racist.

    The premise of the article, if I understood it, was to show there are roadblocks to progressivism. From reading the above, it appears that the claim is the roadblock is mainly white racism... not in 1937 but present day. Yet it presents not one supporting fact to make a case. And unless it can do more than express what really is just another racist sentiment (not only by tone but by terms like "lily white" etc.) it should not be allowed.

    What a poor case to lift up and positively change a generation (if that's what is hoped for)... by tearing down another whole generational group for "sins of the parents".


    by smithers_T on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:20pm

    Buckle up, folks! Here we go again.

    I'm not kidding, if a comment comes from smithers_t, you can bet it isn't going to be happy talk.

    Back in the TPM days, engaging with people like this was called "feeding the troll." So, if you're having fun with him (or her) keep engaging. If not, quit feeding him, and he'll go away. Many of you are putting a lot of time and effort into your responses to him, and basically it is spitting into the wind. He reads comments for ammo to lob back, not to learn or try to understand where you're coming from.


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:32pm

    I don't feed trolls stillli. I am quite content in just feeding myself.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:35pm

    Crap! Just realized I let your birthday pass w/o sending best wishes...hope it was a good one!


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:54pm

    I'm sorry, but if you make comments about the "lily white", about "these people".."in their white towns" needing to be fought, on the perceptual basis of bigoted racial  attitude toward minorities, then you've opened up a serious unhappy topic all by yourself, and it's valid to comment on it. As for the troll comment... well, put up some facts, and there could not possibly be a context for that. Maybe you have a point though. Maybe I shouldn't expect any. Which is fine. Rant away.


    by smithers_T on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:46pm

    How does an African American businessman provide documentation to prove he can't get a cab in Manhattan while his white counterpart does not?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:08am

    "How does an African American businessman provide documentation to prove he can't get a cab in Manhattan while his white counterpart does not?"

    Somebody actually studied that problem (if I find the citation I'll put it up), it was slightly different than your scenario, it looked at all people types (not only businessmen).

    If I remember it correctly it was in Washington DC and the surrounding area. The only evidence of what was perceived to be racism (based on anecdotal information) was a reluctance to pick up younger African American males after sunset. It turned out, upon further investigation, that many cabbies had been rolled by young African American males after sunset, especially in certain areas with high drug activity. This was actually a case of "reluctant racial discrimination". Some cabbies reported feeling some guilt but they wanted for their own safety ultimately.

    I have a nephew who that happened to. In his case, he picked up the young man in a high crime area not knowing better, the man accused him of being a cop (which of course he wasn't) and almost took his life.

    The above problem, I think, is economic, not racial. Statistics don't point to race as indicators of vice, they point to economic conditions.


    by smithers_T on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 1:22am

    There has always been small town closed-mindedness, even in city neighborhoods.  It's the old survival instinct, which then of course becomes tribal, as there is safety in numbers.  They're not open to change and they're suspicious of outsiders and outside thoughts.  They're comfortable with the familiar and with "it's the way it's always been".

    That mindset is almost impossible to permeate.  I've lived in many places like that and have managed to stay above it, but what happens then is not so pleasant, either.  I am forever the outsider, looked on with slight suspicion, privy to only the most superficial friendships, and always made to feel there are things I don't know and never will.  But if I'm living around people whose political leanings and values are different than mine, it's almost the only way we can live together.

    For example, I now live in a fairly remote place where blacks are seen only now and then.  Liberals are seen even less.  I write a liberal blog but nobody here knows about it, and that's the way it has to be if we're to maintain any kind of neighborly contact.  They vote Republican, and I don't.  They know that, but so far there haven't been any real blasts over it, because that's not how we operate here.  We don't have to prove points.  I don't feel the need to try and convince them of my POV, and neither do they.

    Where the trouble comes in closed-minded communities is when the "different" is the enemy.  Here there is no real "different", no one so alien they might be perceived as a danger to the group, so I'm spared having to take sides or having to come to the defense of the "different".

    If that were to happen, I would have to leave.  Pure and simple.  I could no longer live among them, because I would become the enemy and so would they.

    For most of our history we've managed to function as a country, even with our differences.  We were one in some respects, but separate in others, even during the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam era, when our protests grew louder and stronger.  We were still one country.  We held together.  I can't say that's true now.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it lies with something like "leaving the minorities out of it completely".  The minorities are a part of the whole, and liberals/progressives are a part of the part of the whole.  I agree that any argument has to include proof that actions do harm to everyone, including the actors.  But how to get through to small minds is the question every society wrestles with, without resolution, I'm afraid.

    Okay, I'm no help here at all.  But it's a great conversation and I hope more jump in and comment.  Should be interesting.

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:05am

    It's not just that they don't like change, it's that they won't like any policy that would cause their white towns and neighborhoods to change. And it's not that they hate entitlements and safety nets, it's that they hate these safety nets helping those the deem beneath them. This is why Reagan's "Welfare Queen" statement played so well in these areas. And it still does.

    I'm not seeing small town America being against safety nets if we're talking about institutional programs such as Medicare/Social Security/etc. That seems pretty consistent nationally.

    On wider social programs, you may have a point historically speaking. But you are missing something important about the current dynamic. There isn't really anything going on in the national discussion that would cause (or prevent) their white towns and neighborhoods to dramatically change (in a way that impacts whiteness - which is what I infer as your meaning). I don't think that generally speaking there are masses of [insert non-white demographic here] people just dying to move to outer BFE ... if only the folks currently there weren't bigoted a-holes. Even immigration reform and solving unauthorized migration won't really change much - no matter how it's addressed.

    This is the first time I've lived somewhere that can be described as "lily white" (well, with a mature awareness anyway).  It has been a bit of an eye-opener and made me question some of my core assumptions. I've mentioned on other threads that the issues of class, poverty and relative opportunity that often manifest along racial lines in more diverse communities are every bit as extant here. From the grocery in the poor section of town (where everyone's on food assistance and many don't have vehicles to drive elsewhere) being far more expensive to a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions falling to the less-monied classes (easily accomplished through aggressive policing in poorer neighborhoods and protective policing in nicer ones).

    That is what I found so powerful about Shirley Sherrod's message. She talked about coming to a similar realization from a different perspective than mine entirely: that the problems faced by poor black Americans that keep generation after generation stuck in poverty are shared by all people trying to escape poverty. A similar understanding was evidenced in Colin Powell's response to Kanye West when it was asserted the people of New Orleans had been ignored because they were black. Powell responded they had been ignored because they are poor, and the problems of poverty disproportionately impact African Americans (particularly in New Orleans).

    I think the way our approach to civil rights and equality has been so deeply intertwined with the approach to addressing poverty is a strong driver for the resentment you discuss. It is an undeniable (and unacceptable) fact that the percentage of minorities in poverty (and impacted by the so-called downturn) is disturbingly and disproportionately high, for African Americans in particular. It is equally true that the sheer number of Europeanish Americans thus afflicted is devastating.

    As far as the national conversation (and liberal intelligentsia) is concerned, people who happen to be white yet stuck in these conditions don't appear to exist. Or at least nobody directly advocates on their behalf. Despite facing the same generational hurdles to achieving higher education and advancing opportunity shared by all families and individuals stuck in a cycle of systemic poverty. At the same time there is strong single-race advocacy (and support infrastructure) servicing pretty much every other demographic. While it's a comforting tritism to retort "The entire government is a single-race advocacy," that is kind of bullshit. Either way, the dynamic creates at least an appearance, or feeling, that resources are readily available to help everyone EXCEPT white people ... who just have to pay the taxes that make it happen. It is difficult to overstate how much this feeling plays in to absolutely buying the "Welfare Queen" construct in the policy abstract, even while simultaneously feeling personal acceptance and friendship for minorities socially.

    I posted on a local PBS special about hate groups in Idaho a few weeks back. One section highlights a new "church" that has opened somewhere outside Sandpoint. As the program highlights, the message they are using to get people in the door is one of white exclusion. Basically they preach the system is such that anyone who dares advocate on behalf of white people, to suggest the government should address the needs of the majority, is called a racist. And sure enough ... along comes someone to call them racist ... thus proving the point (See! we told you ... now, would you like to come to "special" meetings and get more involved?). Once accepted as true, the view becomes self-reinforcing ... like the reformed Nazi tried to explain in a different part of the same program; when people are yelling hate back at them, a parent can just lean over to a child and whisper "See! They hate you because you are white." ... they affirmatively say the same things to each other and potential recruits.

    It seems like a very dangerous vacuum exists which at this point only hate groups are stepping up to fill. I can only see the dynamic increasing in light of the fact that the powers that be seem to be planning on making the dog-eat-dog even worse ... and keeping it there for a long time.

    It also seems pretty clear that the current frictions and factionalization among the disenfranchised is playing into the hands of entrenched powers in a big way. A cynical person might even speculate they intentionally promote such things. That's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of Cornel West. When he gets to the heart of his message, consistently it is to advocate for poor and working people without distinction. Those who have a strong and credible message of unity are important. We need social and economic justice for all people.

    I think in the end you and I reach the same point: the way to move opinion is to focus on addressing issues for the people who are worried or hurting and articulate how a better approach benefits them. True justice would, by it's very nature, address the disproportional negative pressures on the minority community at the same time it would address the sheer numbers within the majority population also under these same pressures - so should be easily salable on it's merit. Now all we need is a just approach ... and someone willing to carry it's water.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 4:16am

    The concept of democracy seemed to be something in the nation at that time that was for white people.

    I think this could be refined further by changing the word "people" to "men".


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:57pm

    Latest Comments