Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

I will be visiting Europe and the Middle East for the next five weeks.  Thus, I will not be here to comment on anything I see amusing.  I will return, if God wills, in five weeks and update this blog.  For now, keep me on your RSS feeds, keep the subscription going, and I will be back!

Abu Hatem

Share This

A vote is a serious thing.  Yet this shouldn’t be a reason for you to “get out the vote” as the cliche postmodernists at MTV resonate throughout our television screens every four years.  Nay, voting being serious may precisely be a reason why you should not vote.

Just think of it this way.  Many candidates for political office hold the following extremist views: the advocation of mass plunder and killing in aggressive wars and nation building, the rejection of the rights of the unborn, corporate welfare while the underclasses get poorer, and entitlement and socialist leaning welfare programs for poor people which steal from the rich.

It is for this reason that I have been strongly opposed to voting in most elections.  I do not want to be morally responsible for deaths in unnecessary wars.  Perhaps one may make the argument that it is simply the “lesser of two evils” one is voting for, and that one is attempting to limit evil.  This is often my argument as well.  Yet voting is truly a moral and spiritual dilemma.  Does one truly want to give one’s endorsement to a dishonest politican?   Very good question…

Share This

The WSJ today has a blog post on battle ground states. The gist of the argument is that McCain will have to hold on to Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado to beat Obama, meaning a loss in either of these states will cost McCain the election. The WSJ makes a specific point to put an emphasis on Colorado. This is because an Obama victory in Colorado, New Mexico, and either Nevada, or Iowa, under the old Bush-Kerry map of 2004, would result in an Obama victory, and both states are strongly leaning his way.

This has been my argument numerous times on this blog (here, here, here, and here).

Second tidbit of electoral politics, the mainstream media - i.e. The Politico - has finally begun to pick up on the argument of the strong improbability of a McCain victory based on the old fashioned “electoral barometer” analysis of Litchman’s Keys to the White House which I discussed here. While the usually rancid stench of Mort Kondrake’s pitiful attempts at penmanship make this blogger want to puke, he was the first in the mainstream media to break this decade old tool of scholarly political scientists. Politico’s article quotes Litchman as saying:

“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.

The article then quotes Alan Abrowitz, who I noted of (as did Kondrake) weeks ago discussing McCain’s atrocious odds:

“It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said.

Share This

President Obama has upped the ante of class warfare rhetoric to a new level. Obama is promising the biggest tax hike since the second World War on the higher marginal tax brackets. Beware, our draconian, unjust, and repressive progressive tax system has just got harsher. While the rest of the world understands the benefits of economic growth - Russia and Eastern Europe have instituted low flat taxes of around 10-15% each which has precipitated phenomenal growth rates - Obama seeks to take us back to the future of New Deal malaise.

Obama’s irrational mantra is that the current tax system is “unfair.” Fairness, it would seem, entails cutting more and more taxes for lower income Americans and increasing taxes on those of higher incomes. Justice is no Aristotelian maxim for giving each his due or the Jeffersonian equality under the law. Obama believes that flattening our tax system by taxing all income earners by the same proportion would be unjust, even if it provided a tax-exemption to the poor. Instead, Obama calls for making our tax system “more progressive,” and rails against honest commerce - corporations and the upper classes who serve us in our daily lives with gas stations, food, clothing, etc. Please, if you truly hate Exxon and Walmart, then just quit buying gas and food.

Here is our current tax system, courtesy of good ‘ol Ross Perot at Perotcharts.com, his new venture:

The lowest 50% of Americans pay 3.2% of the taxes. The top 5% pays 58.8% of the taxes. And this is unfair to the lower classes? Not to mention the stagnation on economic growth it would cause. Increasing our real per capita GDP means increasing prosperity for everyone.

Taxing the poor does cause them to suffer, as well as Federal Reserve instituted inflation which destroys the savings of the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. I am all for tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, but I am not for tax increases. Instead, we should cut spending.

First are the good parts of Obama’s tax policy:

Obama said his tax plan would give “every middle-class family a $1,000 tax cut.” In addition, his plan aims to eliminate income taxes for seniors who make less than $50,000 a year.

Very good.

Yet Obama replaces this with more taxes on the other guy. Thus this is not a “tax cut” but a tax hike in disguise. Yes, of course, American corporatism protects the big corporations from competition, bails out big business, and gives them corporate welfare and big advantages. There is no doubt this should stop, yet two wrongs don’t make a wright. Or as Frederic Bastiat said in The Law by mutually plundering each other, the rich and poor do not achieve justice in a democracy but a web of injustice.

Obama will destroy the economy. He will increase marginal tax rates to 39% on the top income tax bracket. Two days ago Obama announced he wanted to raise the cap on payroll taxes making the upper income earners - who do not even benefit from what they pay in to social security and Medicare - responsible for paying the taxes of lower income earners. But who is the top income tax bracket? The middle class or anyone who pays taxes.

U.S. News and World Report reports that the Obama tax hike will raise taxes on the top marginal tax bracket by about 15%, making the top marginal tax rate pay net income and payroll taxes of 50.1%. THE MAJORITY IF YOUR INCOME. Does that not strike some people as startling? 50.1%. That is a whopper of a number. It doesn’t approach Jimmy Carter’s 70% but it has still been unheard of in contemporary America.

Bill Clinton, after his election in 1992, decided to concentrate on cutting the deficit and U-turned on a campaign promise made to phenomenally raise tax rates. Instead of Jimmy Carter, we got a Democratic Reagan, with top marginal tax rates barely increased to 39% which were still low and growth inducing.

There may be hope for the Obama taxation monster. And remember although this blog is critical of him, it still endorses him for president. Yet, ardent socialist airhead Naomi Klein writes in today’s Guardian that Obama’s roots at the University of Chicago and links to Chicago school economic advisers may usher in a pro-growth free market Milton Friedman approach to economics, i.e. a more fiscally conservative democratic administration comparable to Bill Clinton’s. Maybe this is all talk and lies out of Obama who has proven himself to be an excellent liar and a very good pandering politician (see AIPAC speech). Klein writes:

Obama’s love of markets and his desire for “change” are not inherently incompatible. “The market has gotten out of balance,” he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counter-revolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago. And here there are more problems, because Obama - who taught law at Chicago for a decade - is embedded in the mindset known as the Chicago School.

Obama chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the centre-right.

Klein laments Obama’s pro-growth pro-market rhetoric but sees room for hope because of the sheer amount of pandering Obama has done. Who can truly take him seriously in anything he says? He makes his fellow flip-flop Hall of Famers - John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain - proud. Yet perhaps Obama’s Friedmanite roots will cause him to balance budgets and keep taxes reasonable. Just maybe.

Overall however, what we are hearing from Senator Obama is the same old McGovernite package but this time its masked in Reaganite clothing.

Share This

The blogs are lit up in discourse concerning who should replace Tim Russert as moderator of NBC’s Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. Names being floated around are pretty much everyone employed with NBC news, the typical list of Chris Mathews, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, or even to some Tom Brockow, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, or Keith Olbermann. Non-NBC choices have been Katie Couric or George Stephanopolis. Those are all silly choices, and I don’t think NBC News execs will consider any of them other than Gregory or Mitchell. I will bet that Gregory takes MTP in the end.

Anyways, I have two suggestions on who should replace Tim as a humble TV news viewer. There are only two candidates, one from NBC News and another outside.

If you want someone to replace Tim Russert you need a someone who has a combination of three things: (1) a deep knowledge of politics, (2) a strong interview style, and (3) ability to bring in high ratings.

Candidate 1: Now at NBC News, the only one with a deep knowledge of politics comparable to Tim Russert is their political director Chuck Todd.

Todd, before his NBC fame, was an integral part of the real political journalism at the real sources of PBS, CSPAN, and the non-partisan National Journal where he edited the Hotline for 15 years. Todd is very familiar with Washington, non-partisan, a professor of political communication, and a graduate of George Washington University. Viewers know Todd for his number crunching during this campaign season wherein he outlined scenarios for Clinton and Obama victories.

There is no doubt Todd knows his stuff. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post did a story on him in May. Russert was quoted in the piece:

 

Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief, hired him from the Hotline, the online political digest, telling Todd that beyond his office duties he would get a tryout on “Meet the Press.” Apparently Todd passed the audition. “The secret to his success is he understands politics and can explain it,” Russert says. “Our platforms are 24/7, and someone has to man the platforms.”

The flaws of Todd are that he is too young (36) and that although he is a political junkie it is still unknown how well his interviews would go. I hope however that NBC gives him a chance, it would take a few years but Todd’s talent would shine. He has already covered all of the elections from ‘92 on for the National Journal, so we hope he makes it.

Candidate 2: John King.

The only person with a combination of a knowledge of politics, although not matching that of Todd or Russert, the ability to anchor, and the prospects of bringing in high ratings is CNN’s John King. John King is professional and non-partisan. Before his days at CNN he was at the Associated Press (the real news as well) since 1985 in fact, and was the head of their political coverage since 1991. At CNN he has become particularly political savvy as the chief White House correspondent from 1999-2005, a role shared by his NBC counterpart David Gregory. King is the designated substitute anchor for Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and even Larry King, and has even moderated a few debates.

The downfalls of King are that he is still contracted with CNN, he is not as politically savvy as expert Tim Russert was, and that his interview style is not hard hitting.

Whatever happens and whoever replaces Tim Russert, the man is irreplaceable. Nobody watched Stephanapolis, Scheifer, Chris Wallace or Wolfe on Sunday mornings because their shows all sucked. All of those other shows were preparation for Meet the Press, the only real politics show that mattered because of Russert’s personality, charm, knowledge, and hard hitting interviews. NBC News’ political team other than Russert, Todd, and a few other journalists is a complete joke. Without Russert, NBC is the political gossipy talk show network. When Gregory or the disgusting Chris Matthews takes over we will see the further degeneration of journalism!

UPDATE: The NYTimes tomorrow has a piece on replacing Russert. Names which are mentioned:

But the list of potential names to assume the moderator role on “Meet the Press” is already well known. From inside NBC, the potential candidates include the evening news anchor, Brian Williams, who would be doing double duty (as Mr. Schieffer did for a time at CBS), correspondents David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC hosts like Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann. Several of those names are already lightning rods for critics, however.

NBC could smooth the transition by offering the post on a temporary basis to Mr. Brokaw, who stepped down as the network’s anchor in 2004. Because of past associations both with NBC and Mr. Zucker, Katie Couric will also very likely be mentioned as a possibility, with her tenure as the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” widely expected to end sometime in the next year.

In planning election coverage without Mr. Russert, NBC has him to thank. He was widely regarded as a good judge of talent and a good mentor at the network, and the list of successors includes many people, including Ms. Couric and Gwen Ifill of PBS, whom he recruited or encouraged.

Share This

I must post one more post on Russert, simply because after reading every article about the man in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Politico, Huffington Post, and seen every TV special on the man in recent days on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CSPAN, and other networks, I found that I liked the man more than I thought and that he truly exemplified American values.  As Pat Buchanan said, “He was a man who loved where he came from.”

• Be humble
• Always ask people how their families are doing and actually care
• Love your family
• Filial piety is essential to life
• Joke with people and cheer them up
• Pick up your weak common man
• Give people breaks and help them out
• Remember people’s special occasions
• Give to people, remember others with gifts and acts of kindness
• Be there for your children

This is all common sense.  This ecumenic wisdom of the ages can be found in sages as varied as Confucius and Christ (may God bless him and give him peace).  But in the end we typically forget these things and often live me-centered lives.  Kudos to Tim Russert for understanding the important in the postmodern age obsessed with vainglory and wealth.

Share This

As all of you already know, today died one of the only remainders of true journalism left on television - veteran NBC newsman Tim Russert, moderator of Meet the Press. As an avid TV news viewer, I was shocked and saddened at the news which I read from an AP wire on the New York Times website first at 3:19 PM EST.

I have been watching the Russert coverage all day on MSNBC and CNN as well as NBC’s special about his life tonight. What a great guy, but I already knew that. I have been watching Meet the Press weekly, before my Sunday trip to the masjid for afternoon prayers, for many, many years. In fact, only two weeks ago when my local TV affiliate canceled Meet the Press one week for storm warnings, I contemplated writing an angry letter in protest.

Tim is really a testament about what is great about America. He is a reason why I am so happy and glad and thankful to God that I was born in this country. Former NBC News correspondent and current CNN anchor Campbell Brown tearfully reflected today that Tim had written a letter to her new born son on the day of his birth telling him how lucky he had been to be born into such a great world. A man of faith, Tim believed in God’s greatness like the true faithful optimist. He knew of the virtue of hope, or as Muslims would say to see God’s jamal or beauty in everything in life even hardship. The true believer is an optimist.

Tim believed in God, family, and his good ‘ol town of Buffalo which he reverberated constantly throughout his broadcasts. He always was a fighter for the common man, he knew the follies of arrogance and hubris, and stayed down to earth. He was genuinely kind which was apparent both on air and by those who knew him in the business. And he always reached out to help other people, knowing that this was such a great country with opportunity to all that sought it. He said once that every time he contemplated missing a test for Law School he remembered his father picking up heavy trash as a garbage truck man and how his dad’s sacrifice paled in comparison to his. And Lord knows, Russert did work hard, on TV news he did his job especially well working as hard as he could to present the most excellent Sunday morning broadcast. As the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “Verily, God loves that when one do a task he does it excellently.”

Big Russ and Me, Tim’s 2004 book was a bestseller and truly reflected the strong value of family. The traditional natural order, the good ‘ol family man, taking care of others around you and seeing optimism in all that you do. Tim did what he loved and loved what he did. He truly is the example of happiness in life, of how we can spread goodness in this world, and how the traditional values of the natural and transcendent moral order yield far more benefits even in our worldly existence than the nihilistic essence of postmodernism.

It seems like common sense, and it is, to love and be loved, to give and you shall receive, to lift up others and stay humble, to do what one is good at and do it well, to care for and serve your fellow man especially your family, and to be an optimist in seeing God’s grace throughout life. Common sense keys to happiness in a confused world. Russert was a smarter cookie than you think, a devout Catholic and intellectual he did not have to rhetorically expound upon these self-evident truths of the wisdom of the ages, he lived them. The great grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), the great Imam Ja’faar as-Sadiq used to say “Call people to the Lord in secret, through your own example.”

An example of Russert’s wisdom can be seen in the final pages of his book Big Russ and Me wherein he pens a letter to his own son Luke advising him on what to do in life. Russert, in such a common-sense way devoid of the abstract theories of moral philosophes, proudly and graciously provides the common man’s insight to the good life:

But remember, while you are always, always loved, you are never, never entitled. As grandpa likes to say, the world doesn’t owe you a favor. You do, however, owe the world this something, to live a good and decent and meaningful life, and would be the ultimate affirmation of grandpa’s lessons and values. The wisest commencement speech I ever heard was all of 15 words; the best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up. I’m so proud to be your father. Pursue every one of your dreams. They really are reachable. As Big Russ would say, what a country. Love dad.

I’ll take Tim Russert any day before the mumblings of the coffee house intellectual crew. If its Sunday, its Meet the Press… Russert, you will be severely missed.

Share This

The so-called “conservative movement” took over Washington D.C. in 1980 with the Reagan era and the end of the reign of liberal republicans and democrats from Richard Nixon (”We are all Keynesians now!”) and Gerald Ford to Jimmy Carter. What began in 1980, went through 1992 and after republican defeat at the ballot box to Bill Clinton re-emerged in 1994 with the “Republican revolution” takeover of Congress, and George W. Bush’s Presidency which was concurrent for the most part with republican takeover of the Congress from 2002-2006.

The so-called conservatives were built upon a movement that traces itself back to the Old Right during the imperial presidency of Franklin Roosevelt who’s “New Deal” found ardent pro-liberty and pro-limited government critics. Robert A. Taft was probably the most well known face of the mid-twentieth century conservative movement, and its intellectual backers were Frank S. Meyer, Russell Kirk, Willmoore Kendall, Robert Nisbet, Albert J. Nock, Robert Nozick, economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek and others. What held the conservative movement together was a belief in liberty, free markets, tradition, federalism, and an utter opposition to aggressive war and foreign entanglements, coupled with a suspicion of executive power. These were all outlined by Russell Kirk, perhaps the father of modern American conservatism in his The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot.

Yet what resulted from this movement, from Reagan to Bush II, was not conservatism. The conservative movement was truly a psuedoconservative moment. While republican congressmen often like to quote a word or two of Nisbet or Kirk or Friedman, they truy have revolted against the theoretical underpinnings of conservatism itself. It is rare nowadays in our government to find someone who truly understands American conservatism and political thought, and who truly understands what conservatism even is.

This is perhaps why the republican brand is dying. Obama’s (or even left-wing McCain’s for that matter) election may usher in conservatism’s death, and obituaries are already being written. Did takeover of the White House, the Congress, and a 4-justice stacked conservative Supreme Court accomplish anything remotely conservative?

Without looking at social issues like our soaring divorce rates, crime rates, drug abuse rates, and religiosity rates, or our civil liberties that have been basically ignored for the past 8 years, or even our neo-imperialist foreign policies, the conservative movement hasn’t even yet to deliver on the one mantra promise echoed from Reagan to Bush II: limited government.

Here are the statistics highlighting the change from the liberal Carter years through the conservative movement’s takeover until now. First the growth of the federal budget, so much for limited government:

And now, the budget deficits, so much for fiscal responsibility:

And now, the federal debt as well:

In fact, the only place where “conservatives” actually delivered on their promises were tax cuts. Although they never got rid of the income tax, they did cut top marginal tax rates phenomenally which caused rapid GDP growth in the American economy. For this they must be given credit, but whats the use of getting our money back if budget deficits and the federal debt are causing it to perpetually inflate? Here are the stats on the top marginal tax rate from Nixon to Bush II:

Of course, this graph is disgusting when you figure in the growth of the budget!

All-in-all, the conservative movement was simply a psuedoconservative moment. Conservatives have waited since FDR to restore itself on the scene, but unfortunately it is not working out. Perhaps Ron Paul’s presidential run will inspire a new generation of Americans to fight for liberty and tradition.

Share This

After Obama’s horrid economic plan, you would think that is as “class warfare” socialist you could get in America. Well, not so, because as bad as Obama’s economic plan was it does not touch the psuedoconservatism that is John Sidney McCain.

Ahem, Mr. “No Earmark,” McCain has attempted in past weeks to tout his economically conservative bona fides. The same McCain who lamented often that congress was spending money like a drunken sailor himself funded a war which has built up the biggest budget deficit in decades. And this is from a “fiscal conservative.” If thats fiscal conservatism, then who cares about earmarks. Republicans like to talk about earmarks because they realize that their wars, and democratic entitlements are the top sources of all government spending.

Anyway, McCain has truly shown his Nazism, yes Nazism or fascism, in remarks that he has given in the past two days. For McCain, taxes are a good thing, and income and death taxes make up a “patriotic duty,” a form of nationalism, for the common good. The Huffington Post reports the following on McCain’s support of the absolutely unjust death tax:

“In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax . Roosevelt explained: ‘The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.’ Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: ‘Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.’ He noted, however, that such taxation should ‘be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.’

“I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax.”

Death taxes a “patriotic duty” and “obligation to the State” is not conservatism, it is fascist Statist paternalism at its worst. But not only is McCain’s über-patriotism manifest in his tax policy, it seems to be a recurring theme for his campaign. Only last February McCain said that in America’s imperialistic adventures in Vietnam he had “led the largest squadron in the United States Navy, not for profit, but for patriotism,” which distressed pro-growth conservatives even at the pro-war Wall Street Journal. McCain is surely no true conservative, nor true capitalist. I can see antiwar Russell Kirk rolling in his grave right now at McCain’s über-patriotism, his support for American democratic imperialist neoconservatism, and his “100 years of war” remark. Obviously, John Sidney McWar has no place in Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. Surely, even the most irrational reader will inquire “from whence did conservatism mean imperialism?” for without doubt it cannot be found in Burke, Eliot, or Santayana.

Yet fascist John McCain’s socialistic class warfare rhetoric does not even stop there. McCain’s socialism extends further. As the Financial Times reports, McCain said the following today:

“Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another $40m or $50m for the road.. if I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders.”

So the death tax and income taxes are patriotic? Government spending of our tax money on imperial wars fulfills our “obligation to the State,” and fighting in these imperial wars expresses our “serving the State.” And to top it all off, McCain will go after honest commerce and business if he finds that CEO’s of corporations are making too much. Oh please, and he keeps repeating that the National Journal calls Obama the most liberal in the senate? Give me a liberal democrat before a pseudo-republican socialist. Barack “Class Warfare” Obama trumps John “Class Warfare” McCain, for the true conservatives at least.

Share This

The Huffington Post reports the following names on Obama’s VP short list according to MSNBC discussions with party insiders on capitol hill. Chuck Todd has good sources, so all of these names must have come up somewhere:

Hmm.. Yeah, umm right. Most of this speculation is just done by the media to retain its ratings surge that resulted from the particularly long primary process for the democratic nomination. But, really, lets just knock out the names that have absolutely no chance in hell at being Barack Obama’s running mate:

John Kerry is old news, no party ever does that kind of thing, at least nowadays. So is John Edwards, who already has said he would not take the post. Mark Warner is running for senate in Virginia against Jim Gilmore, will most likely win, and the democrats can’t afford to take that seat away. He’s not leaving mid-campaign. Tim Kaine? Come on, he’s not even that popular in Virginia to be a VP nominee. The only Virginia choice that actually makes sense is Jim Webb. And Chris Dodd is yesteryear’s news and would not really be that much of an asset on the ticket. I can assure you he just won’t be picked.

What are my Veepstakes predictions? I would say Obama is going to pick one of the following: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Sam Nunn, Jim Webb, or Hillary Clinton (probably not). Or he will find a white, older, experienced figure with national security chops. Simple as that.

What about McCain? His list is a lot easier. It has been well known the McCain list consists of Gov. Tom Pawlenty (Minnesota), Gov. Charlie Crist (Florida), Gov. Mark Sanford (South Carolina), Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), and former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusets).

Who do I think its going to be? I say Romney, Crist, and Jindal have the best shots. But I am almost sure McCain is going to pick one of those off that list. We have about a month or two until the VP is named, so let’s just sit back relax and see.

Share This