08/02/13 – Reza Marashi – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott here, hawking stickers for the back of your truck.
They've got some great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
Get Your Son Killed, Jeb Bush 2016.
FDR, No Longer the Worst President in American History.
The National Security Agency, Blackmailing Your Congressmen Since 1952.
And USA, Sometimes We Back Al Qaeda, Sometimes We Don't.
And there's over a thousand other great ones on the wars, police, state, elections, the Federal Reserve, and more at LibertyStickers.com.
They'll take care of all your custom printing for your bandier business at TheBumperSticker.com.
LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
How's it going?
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Here Monday through Friday from noon to 2 Eastern.
ScottHorton.org and NoAgendaStream.com.
Also KPFK on Friday nights.
All right.
You can follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slashScottHortonShow if you're into that kind of thing, too.
All right.
So our next guest on the show today is Reza Marashi from NIAC.
That's the National Iranian American Council.
Welcome back to the show.
Reza, how are you doing?
I'm doing well.
Thanks for having me.
Well, I'm very happy to have you here.
I've been neglecting the Iran issue, and Phil Giraldi brought up on the show yesterday how important it is that we not take our eye off the ball on that one, and I was kind of agreeing with that.
And of course, there's a whole hell of a lot to talk about.
And then I saw this morning, I was going to have you on anyway if I could, and then I saw there's a mistranslation about Israel or something.
Not again.
What?
Can you clarify what's going on here, please, for me, sir?
Sure.
Yeah, well, the Iranian press picked up some comments that Rouhani had made in response to a question about Israel.
Rouhani, that's the new president.
The president-elect who will be inaugurated tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, if I'm not mistaken.
And so the guy who's about to become president in Iran answered a question about Israel and was mistranslated by the Iranian press.
You know, different media outlets in Iran support different political views, not too different from here in the United States.
And the people that are more hard-line in Iran mistranslated his comments, and that was done intentionally because, you know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the comments that Ahmadinejad made, the current Iranian president who's on his way out, the comments that he made about Israel a couple of years back, you know, put Iran into a different political stratosphere when it came to worsening relations with the rest of the world.
And so, you know, they tried to box the new president of Iran.
They tried to box him in in the same way.
But, you know, I give the new president of Iran's social media team and his overall media team some credit because they very quickly came with video that was even translated and subtitled, too, you know, correcting the misquotation.
So the real question is, why was he misquoted?
And I think the obvious answer is because there are political extremists, you know, a minority faction inside of Iran that want to clip his wings and not let him accomplish his foreign policy and domestic policy agenda as easy as he would otherwise.
Okay.
Now, a question here, because the way I remember this is what happened to Ahmadinejad back in 2005, right?
It was Iranian press that got it wrong originally, and then the American press ran with it because they wanted to anyway.
Well, I think the fundamental difference between what had happened to Ahmadinejad a couple of years back and what happened today with Mr. Rouhani, the man who's about to become the president, is, you know, Ahmadinejad was intentionally trying to be confrontational vis-a-vis Israel in terms of his rhetoric, just his rhetoric, not his actions.
But specifically, though, he did not threaten aggressive genocidal warfare against Israel, right?
No, no, he didn't say that, you know, we're going to do X, Y, Z to Israel.
He didn't say anything like that.
It was interpreted that way, but that's not what he said.
But in the bigger scheme of things, you know, inflammatory rhetoric, whether or not you are going to, you know, act on it or whether or not you plan on acting on it or whether or not you say you're going to act on it generally isn't helpful.
And, you know, we do that here, too, just not the same way that he did.
And, you know, he should be condemned for even having gone down that path.
And he was, you know, across the board.
And that's agreed.
But do you think that someone was putting words in his mouth by changing it to wiped off the map when that's not what he said, in the same way that you're saying it looks like that's what they're doing, politically distorting his words on purpose?
This agenda driven Iranian media there?
Well, I think the fundamental difference between what happened today and what happened a couple of years back is, you know, you have one guy who's intentionally trying to be antagonistic, and then you have another guy who's not, right?
And that's the fundamental difference between the two.
And that's not to say that it didn't matter to get it accurate, to get it right, what Ahmadinejad did or didn't say.
But I think, you know, what's happened in the past is in the past.
And we've gotten to the bottom of that.
Now, it's more important to look at what's going on today, because you have people that are trying to clip the wings of somebody who's a political centrist that has a track record of trying to do business with Western countries and deescalate conflict.
And so that's what makes it important.
Right.
Well, now, so CBS was running with the inflammatory headline, even though they admit throughout their article that, oh, yeah, but then it turned out he didn't really say it.
It says he calls Israel an old wound.
Maybe that wasn't the part that was corrected.
Can you give us exactly the detail on what he did and did not say?
Just for the record here.
Sure.
Yeah.
You know, so like I was saying before, he got asked a question about about Israel, and he responded to the question that he was asked by essentially saying something to the effect of he was excuse me.
He was originally quoted by saying Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed.
That's what he was quoted as saying before the correct quote came about.
And he actually didn't say anything along those lines.
He doesn't mention the word Israel, Zionism or droid.
Right.
And what he essentially says is, you know, you know, region, you know, the idea of, you know, any type of oppression or aggression that is an old wound that has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world, you know, in the shadow of occupation of Palestine, et cetera, et cetera.
And as you can see, the fundamental difference between, you know, when in the correct version, he doesn't mention the world, the words Israel, droid or Zionism or anything like that.
So but this is, you know, this is what extremist elements in the media do, whether it's in Iran, the United States or anywhere else.
You know, they intentionally misquote people and their agenda and the responsibility of the more responsible, more moderate voices to push back.
And that's exactly what the president elects often over the last couple of hours.
Right.
Does that clear things up a little bit?
A bit.
I got one more point of clarification, which is just when he says Palestine, is he talking about all of Israel or he's talking about the occupied West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, do you think?
He's definitely talking about the left.
He has been an Iranian politician that has fallen into the camp of we'll accept whatever the people, the Palestinian people, in terms of, you know, that peace treaty with the Israelis.
Yeah, that's what I assumed when I read it.
That's what it sounded like to me was that he was actually being careful to not refer to Israel at all.
But Palestine, as it is supposed to exist once John Kerry is done succeeding over there or whatever.
Right.
We'll keep our fingers crossed.
All right.
OK, so now this guy, Rouhani, the new president elect, how about you tell us everything in the world that we need to know about him?
Well, I'd say that there's three things that are worth the name.
On the one hand, and most importantly, in terms of his domestic politics, he's a centrist.
You know, he's not a leftist.
He's also not a hardline extremist conservative.
He's somebody that's going to try to bring people from across the political spectrum into his tent and create unity within the system.
And in politics, it's impossible to create across the board unity.
But he, with his track record of being a healer and a healer, if you will, in terms of political risks, probably has a better chance than in recent memory to make that happen.
So that's one.
He's going to try to, you know, create a little Kumbaya system.
Two, as I said before, he has a track record of doing business with the West.
There have been very senior former European diplomats that have come out and said, we negotiated with this guy from 2000 to 2005.
He's a man of his word.
He holds up his ends of the bargain.
And, you know, he can convince the supremers to do things that they might not have otherwise been willing to do.
And that's important if you're trying to avoid conflict.
And the third thing I would say is that, you know, people went out and voted for this guy in Iran overwhelmingly, a candidate of hope and change.
These are words that he used, just like Obama used in 2008.
But I think the Iranian electorate perhaps is a bit more sophisticated than the American electorate in understanding that the hope and change that they voted for is going to come very slowly.
They don't expect miracles overnight.
And I think it took a lot of people in the United States to realize that, you know, the hope and change that Obama was promising was going to be slow, if at all.
But the Iranians are much they have much more crystallized idea of that in their mind.
Right.
OK, so first of all, point two.
Well, I guess only point to Western negotiations.
You say he was negotiating on the nuclear issue in 2005 or on Iraq issues or what?
Yeah, he was negotiating.
At the time, the United States, the Bush administration had refused to enter into any kind of negotiations with the Iranians.
So they're talking to the E3 and all that.
That's what I was going to ask.
Is this the guy that made the deal that they would abide by the additional protocol?
Or he's the guy who decided to stop abiding by it?
No, he's the one that decided to abide by it.
OK, now.
So this is where it is.
Stop right there.
Hang on, everybody.
Listen here for a second.
Reza Marashi, research director at NIAC.
That's NIA Council or the National Iranian American Council.
He used to work for the State Department.
And now so this is really important, everybody, to understand.
So give him a chance to understand about what is an additional protocol to a safeguards agreement.
And it sounds kind of boring, but it's really not.
And as it was negotiated by this guy who's now going to be the president of Iran.
Sure.
To put it in layman's terms, the additional protocol is essentially a legal document that complements the comprehensive safeguards agreement of the IAEA.
So it allows more inspections.
It allows more oversight.
It allows instantaneous access to information, right?
Essentially, when you create an international treaty, as the nonproliferation treaty was created decades ago, over time, you realize that sometimes it has loopholes or weak points.
So the additional protocol was an attempt to close some of the loopholes and to create more accountability and transparency for countries that have nuclear programs.
They're not required by law to agree to the additional protocol.
But if you do, it creates more trust between that particular country and the international community.
So the president-elect, Mr. Rouhani of Iran, back in 2003 to 2005, he was the chief nuclear negotiator for the Iranian delegation that was negotiating with three countries in Europe, the British, the French, and the Germans.
And so this gentleman convinced the Supreme Leader to halt all enrichment of uranium in Iran at that time as a show of good faith and to implement the additional protocol as a show of good faith.
And they ended up not being able to get the Europeans to follow up on their end of the agreement because the Bush administration essentially said, well, we got what we wanted.
You know, the Iranians aren't enriching, so let's just keep it like this.
And so after about a year and a half to two years of that, the Iranians said, hold on a second.
We lived up to our end of the bargain.
You didn't.
And then they started enriching uranium again.
They stopped implementing the additional protocol.
And the rest is history.
And saw that coming, too.
Anybody can just go back and read Gordon Prather's archive.
Antiwar.com is all this is happening in real time where, hey, their parliament has not ratified the additional protocol and they're still going by anyway.
And like you're saying, it not only allows free reign for the international nuclear cops to inspect whatever they want, whenever they want and that kind of thing, as long as it's nuclear related anyway.
And in fact, beyond even nuclear facilities, even if you want to elaborate that about that, you can.
But most importantly, as you said, they froze any enrichment.
At that time, the Natanz facility was just a giant underground empty Walmart with no shelves.
There was nothing there.
It was after they and maybe they had started putting some centrifuges together, but they certainly weren't enriching uranium hexafluoride gas until after they told the E3, well, geez, I guess you guys aren't negotiating in good faith after all, after what, two years or three years of abiding by the thing?
Yeah, you know, it's not that the Europeans weren't negotiating a good faith.
It's that America is the superpower and Europe does not have the capability to deliver.
It's the United States that can deliver.
It's the United States that can bless the process of allowing Iran back into the good graces of the international community.
It's the United States that can lift the sanctions that really matter to the Iranians.
It's the United States, you know, because essentially what we've done, the United States at this point, is we've told the rest of the world, you can do business with the Iranians or you can do business with us.
This is what we're essentially saying now with the sanctions that we've put forward force countries to choose.
And so the Iranians know that now after having tried to strike a deal with the Europeans without America at the table, it's not possible.
So you can't cut the Europeans out of the process, but America has to beat the table as well.
And then that's the big difference now between what happened during the Bush administration, what happened during Obama.
America is at the table now.
But here you have a moderate, a relative moderate, excuse me, a centrist, if you will, president in Iran.
And you have a president of the United States who says he wants to solve the conflict peacefully.
Well, now we're about to find out who really wants to solve it peacefully and then who's just paying lip service.
Right.
Well, and I guess the prime minister of Israel has made his position clear that none of these guys can be dealt with.
They're all too crazy to negotiate with or to trust in any negotiation.
Why sit down with somebody who believes that the 12th Imam is going to blow up the world?
Yeah.
And, you know, this is, you know, this is something that the Israelis have been very good at over time, which is, you know, painting a picture of an Iranian regime that's all cut from the same cloth and that, you know, makes decisions based on ideology that's very extreme.
And, you know, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you don't have elements of that in the Iranian regime, but I am going to say that's not an accurate depiction of the country as a whole or the system that governs the country as a whole.
It's got its bad parts and its less bad parts.
And you can empower the moderate or the less bad parts of the system by giving them something to hang their hat on, something they can beat back extremists with.
And, you know, this is something that I think we're going to see over the next one to three, maybe even five, six months.
You know, do we have enough political space in Washington?
Do we have leaders that are willing to take risks for peace that the Iranians can then, you know, turn around and beat back their own extremists with?
There's only one way to find out.
Okay.
Now, there have been some meetings here, there, the other place, mostly talks toward the having of talks.
At some point, they're going to have some talks where they really talk about talking about some stuff here or something.
And I know that that's how it's supposed to work in international diplomacy.
You know, you fly all the way to North Korea just to have a cup of tea and fly away again or whatever.
But at some point, somebody's got to talk about talking about some things here.
And everybody in the whole world who cares already knows what the deal is, right?
It more or less, except the additional protocol.
Again, keep your enrichment down to 3.6 percent uranium 235 for your electricity program, outsource your 20 percent and we'll lift some of the sanctions and maybe at least imply that we won't bomb you in a first strike attack, if not outright give you a security guarantee.
That's the form of the deal.
Everybody knows it, right?
Or tell me where I'm off.
When, if ever, is this going to kick in?
I mean, do you think that the Obama administration even wants to really do this?
I mean, I know it's polite to say it remains to be seen, but come on.
Yeah, I think there's very little question about whether or not the Obama administration wants to do this, because as you correctly noted, everybody knows what the contours of a deal will look like, whether it's on the nuclear issue or something more broad overall U.S.
-Iran relation.
The opinion that the major sticking point is that the United States has run a regional security framework or an architecture of the Middle East since the end of World War II.
And you either operate along with the game that we set up, or we seek to weaken and isolate you until a different form of government is running your country that's more favorable to the rules of the game there in forces.
And Iran, since its revolution in 1979, has been a country that has not been willing to play by the rules of the game that America has set up and that America enforces.
And America is not willing to change the rules of the game to accommodate Iranian preferences.
So what appears to look like a zero-sum game where one side can win and one side then subsequently has to lose is going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless they sit down and test the willingness of both sides to be flexible.
And that's not something that's happened yet.
You know, going to the negotiating table once every three months to talk about one issue and one issue only is not taking risks for peace.
And so building confidence over a sustained period of time requires talking that don't have to do with enrichment or centrifuges or weapons.
You have to talk about the root of the issue.
And this is the best opportunity we've had since Obama took office to do so with the Iranian president coming into the executive branch over there.
Yeah.
Well, you know, if they did want to work on the one issue, but they and they really meant it, then I think you really could.
That could be a great way to break through to negotiate the rest of the issues, too.
But boy, if they're just going to dork around with it, then it's not going to amount to much.
You know, we got to get serious here.
You know, innocent people are being affected in very negative ways by the sanctions that Iran has been facing increasingly over the past one to two years.
That's not to say that there wasn't mismanagement and corruption in the country beforehand.
There was and there still is.
But it's not a chicken and egg argument.
Something that's been a long standing problem has gotten much, much worse.
And if the rule number one of American policy is do no harm, well, then we need to take a long look at the mirror and say, well, we are doing some harm now.
What can we do to maybe, you know, make our interests and our values align a little bit more effectively?
And that's where leadership comes in.
Again, I know I keep harping on this point, but, you know, you're going to grow a pair.
Yeah, well, that's my thing, too.
I keep thinking and I know this isn't everyone's preference, but it's still a fun little thought experiment.
If Ron Paul had been elected in 2008 or 2012, he did come in his first week in office and said, Iran, I hereby swear I'm not going to bomb you.
Go ahead and make electricity with your atoms.
What the hell do I care?
And and and by the way, Admiral, pull your boats back off of their coast and peace would have broken out at least as far as that goes.
It would have been as simple as that.
Well, it doesn't there's no courage required, really, except to just release a statement saying those former bets are now off.
So hard about that.
That's what I would do.
No, you're making an important point, which is the United States needs to put forward a grand gesture to the Iranians without expecting something back immediately, because the reservoir of mistrust is so deep.
The gulf between the two is so wide that somebody has to do something.
And if you're the leader of the world, I would like to think that the risk of those primarily on your shoulders to take the first because it's childish to argue over who takes the step after the first step is taken.
Nobody remembers who took it because you're focused on doing other things.
Right.
It just takes time.
So, yeah, I do think that there's a lot of different kinds of things that the president can do.
And now is a better time than any.
You know, it's funny, too, because everyone, I think, you know, is interested in political history at all or whatever.
This is the one thing that everybody says nice about Richard Nixon, the devil.
They go, you know what?
The best thing he ever did was go and shake hands with Mao Tse Tung.
What?
Oh, yeah, actually, it was.
And peace broke out over a third of the earth in an instant.
You know, what could possibly be, you know, scary about accomplishing something like that?
That just seems like if any politician would leap at the chance to repeat something like that, say what you will about what Obama did to the Afghans and the Somalis.
But at least he made peace with Iran, you know?
Yeah, I wish it was that simple.
And in theory, the counter argument to that, you know, in the D.C. establishment is, oh, it takes two to tango.
The Iranians would never be willing to do it.
Like, OK, well, what's the risk involved of trying?
Right.
Oh, you know, he needs political space.
His political rivals will beat him up.
Who cares?
He's the president, you know, and a second term president at that.
So, you know, now is the time where you're playing for legacy.
Now is the time where you take those risks.
And, you know, the political culture inside Washington, D.C., I think, not to get all abstract or anything like that, but it's become increasingly poisonous.
It's become increasingly negative.
And, you know, what used to be the art of diplomacy, where it was done and people just understood that this is what you do, I think has gotten wrapped up in this post 9-11, you know, crazy George W. Bush, Barack Obama, deregulated world that we're living in now, where, you know, no, we're the superpower, he says, go.
And it just doesn't work that way anymore.
You know, since the Iraq war, it doesn't work that way.
And people, that's a bitter pill to swallow.
And it's not a pill everybody has swallowed yet.
But the sooner we swallow it as a country, the sooner we can get back to doing business the way that business needs to be done.
Yeah.
You know, I think, unfortunately, it's that double-edged sword.
Why did all of our ancestors flee their former country to move to North America in the first place?
So they could be safe, way the hell over here in North America, away from all the terrible things going on in the old world and have a new chance.
So there's an entirely wonderful, inward-looking perspective to Americans.
But the problem is our government is endlessly outward-looking and acting.
And so what ends up happening is very few people take responsibility for what it's really doing.
And the American people take the attitude that no matter how much they're a Republican and hate the Democrats when they're in power or whatever, that still whatever the American government is doing overseas is what America is doing overseas.
And they're on the side of America and the Iranians.
Well, they hate us.
Everybody knows that.
And pretty much just if you work for AIPAC, then you own two-thirds of the discussion just by showing up.
And the American people aren't even really interested at all.
If Obama or any other president started bombing Iran, the American people would climb on board reluctantly.
But you would see, you know, a 65% approval rating at least for a while, you know?
Yeah.
This is kind of one of those things where, look, in all countries, I know more of their citizens have come to live in America than Americans have left to live there.
And I speak volumes about a lot of positivity that our country can provide.
The flip side of that, of course, is, you know, like Spider-Man said, you know, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, you know, and it's true at the end of the day.
We have an ability to self-correct.
But to not even think that it might be possible that from time to time we need to correct and to have the discussion about how to actually weakens America.
It actually weakens our ability to be the superpower for an extended period of time and future.
The times are changing.
The world is changing.
We can't stay stuck in neutral.
We have to adapt with them as well.
And, you know, you can either force people to do things your way, or you can convince them that it's in their own interest to do things your way.
And that is what's going to secure American preeminence into the future.
Because we tried, you know, we tried it through the barrel of a gun, and it's just not working.
We tried it through a drone, and it's just not working.
So there has to be a better way.
Yeah, you know, at least as far as states go, this state should have to respect that state just for being such an old civilization and all of that kind of thing.
You know, I'm not too much into collectivism, but I can pretend and think like a government for a minute.
And yeah, OK, we had our sock puppet dictator there for a quarter century or so.
But OK, you know, that's off.
That was the aberration.
So they got independence over there.
They're Persia.
We respect Chinese independence to a great degree and Russian independence.
Now they got H-bombs, but you know.
Yeah, and that's the big factor that goes into it.
I'm of the opinion that the United States never fully has a positive, sustainable relationship with any country that isn't, you know, a liberal democracy, as we like to consider ourselves to be.
The relationship is just always tenuous.
You know, we have a working relationship with China, but we're also surrounding them on bases and jets now.
Right.
We have a working relationship with Russia.
But then, you know, Russia feels compelled to take the steps that it's taken on the Snowden issue and and other things like that that we can that the American administration, the Obama administration considers contentious.
And so there's always this uneasiness involved.
Right.
And I think the same thing holds true with Iran is, you know, we could say jump and they could say how high.
But at the end of the day, until they were a liberal democracy, the way that we like to have liberal democracies around the world and whatnot, it's just never going to be 100 percent kosher for whatever reason.
That's just the way that we do business.
And you can argue about whether or not that's a good thing.
But if you don't have a consistent application of your morals or your values or your principles across the board, if you haphazardly apply it and you have double standards and hypocrisy, then it ends up cheapening the concept and weakening the cause.
And people don't take you as seriously.
And I think this is the conundrum that we find ourselves in right now.
Right.
Well, of course, America historically has been the enemy of democracy in Iran.
Democracy in Iran to America means some guy with shiny medals on his jacket, the unquestioned leader until he dies.
But anyway, it's never too late to get it right.
And now's a good time, if any, for us to take a serious step back and consider what we can do to, you know, to help that process along.
All right.
That's Reza Marashi, NIACouncil.org.
Thanks, Reza.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new project, Listen and Think Audio at listenandthink.com.
They've got two new audiobooks read by the deepest voice in libertarianism, the great historian Jeff Riggenbach.
Our Last Hope, Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty by Michael Meharry of the Tenth Amendment Center is available now.
And Beyond Democracy, co-authored by Frank Karsten of the Mises Institute Netherlands and journalist Carl Beckman, will be released this month.
And they're only just getting started.
So check out listenandthink.com.
You may be able to get your first audiobook absolutely free.
That's Listen and Think Audio at listenandthink.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for wallstreetwindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
The Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets, and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and then be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for Rocky Mountain Miners at rockymountainminers.com.
Ever wanted to destroy the Federal Reserve System?
Now's your chance.
New free market currencies are making our fake government money a thing of the past and good riddance.
If you want to mine new bitcoins and litecoins into circulation, you need a computer set up to crack the codes to the new coins.
Get the Prospector from rockymountainminers.com.
It's ready to do the work right out of the box.
Crack the equations, spend the money.
Use promo code SCOTTHORTONSHOW and save $100.
Get all the info and get the Prospector at rockymountainminers.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Are you sick of the neocons in the Israel lobby pretending as though they've earned some kind of monopoly on foreign policy wisdom in Washington, D.C.?
These peanut clowns who've never been right about anything?
Well, the Council for the National Interest is pushing back, putting America first and telling the lobby to go take a hike.
The empire's bad enough without the neocons making it all about the interests of a foreign state.
Help CNI promote peace.
Visit their site at councilforthenationalinterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here inviting you to check out Modern Times Magazine at moderntimesmagazine.com.
It's a great little independent publication out of Phoenix, Arizona, featuring unique views on economics, politics, foreign policy, sports, and music, with great art scene coverage and fiction writing as well.
That's Modern Times Magazine at moderntimesmagazine.com.