Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE:Fox uses Breitbart-style video editing from Michigan RTW rally to show "union thug brutality" (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree with much of what you said (7+ / 0-)

    especially the part about this being used for political purposes by those who support "right to work" laws.  Of course, that comes with the territory these days.  

    That said, I do take issue somewhat with the last part:  

    and Americans for Prosperity sticking their thumb into their eye fans the flames. They had two HUGE tents taking up space in the middle of the Capitol grounds that were largely empty throughout most of the day.
    People who gather on public grounds for a political protest have to EXPECT  that the other side can -- and will -- be there as well.  The other side showing up -- and making a very visible presence -- is not "sticking their thumb in their eye."  It's part of our democratic process.  In other words, the taking down of the tent in the first place, whether it was violent or not, was wrong and should have been stopped by cooler heads.  Nobody,  as part of a protest, gets to use physical means, violent or not, to try to make the other side go away.  
    Shalda told me that Crowder uses a technique of intentionally invading your personal space to make you uncomfortable and then peppers you with questions to make you angry. It is an intentional act to incite an angry response. The Capitol grounds were a tinderbox of angry folks and both AFP and Fox News tossed a lit match into it and then blamed the wood for catching fire.
    That's a bit too forgiving of people who behaved inappropriately.  They are not some inanimate object that simply reacts to stimulus (like some obnoxious words from the other side).  They are  thinking, rational people who have to EXPECT that, in a very high profile political situation, there will be people from the other side who are just as, or even more, vocal as they are. That is how democracy works.  It is a bit disingenuous to say that they were just sitting there like wood and someone threw a match.  You have to expect that a match (through words from the other side that make you angry) will be there.  And if some of the protesters react inappropriately, it's up to the organizers on their side to make sure rational thinking prevails.  

    Again, I completely agree that certain AFP and Fox News will exploit this for political gain, and I completely agree that it's rational to believe that AFP and Crowder wanted to be as "in your face" as possible hoping to provoke exactly the kind of response they got.  

    But I think you are a bit too quick to excuse those who acted inappropriately.  The other side putting up a large tent, and saying things that make you angry, are the kind of thing you have to expect when you engage in a protest on public grounds concerning a highly-charged, emotional issue.  It's not any kind of excuse for destroying the other side's property (taking down the tent) or physical altercations.  

    •  Well... (6+ / 0-)

      I also said, "It pisses me off to no end." I'll stand by my remarks and I'm not excusing anyone from inappropriate behavior on either side of the issue.

      "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
      -- Dr. Peter Venkman


      Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

      by Eclectablog on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:12:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This difference is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, VClib, Darmok

        that AFP and Crowder had a legal right to do what they did -- i.e., be a very visible, very vocal (and obnoxious) presence on public grounds speaking out on a political issue.  As long as the grounds were open to free speech on that date and time, they had every right to do what they did no matter how obnoxious they were about it.  That's protected under the First Amendment.

        Nobody had a legal right to take down AFP's tent or to punch somebody.  No matter how visible, vocal, and obnoxious AFP and/or Crowder were.  That's NOT exercising a First Amendment right, but engaging in illegal conduct.

        I think that the union supporters had an obligation to EXPECT visible, vocal, and obnoxious (legal) speech from the other side, and NOT to respond with illegal conduct.  

        "He made me angry" is not justification for damaging someone else's property, or for punching someone, especially when the thing that mad you angry was someone legally exercising First Amendment rights -- just as you were doing.

        They were both behaving badly, but the difference is that one was doing it legally and one was not.  

        •  If you act like an asshole (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          6412093, Aquarius40, Dirtandiron

          and attack people who are being injured by your compatriots then you get absolutely no sympathy from me when you get socked by one of those people.  These unions are being demonstrably injured and pretending like they are the aggressor is absurd.

          "He made me angry" is not justification for damaging someone else's property, or for punching someone, especially when the thing that mad you angry was someone legally exercising First Amendment rights -- just as you were doing.
          No, but "He is injuring me" most certainly is.  And "He made me angry" is not justification for damaging someone else's property, or for punching someone, especially when the thing that mad you angry was someone legally exercising First Amendment rights -- just as you were doing.  And despite the fact that people want to pretend that government passed laws are not to be resisted, if we all thought that we'd never have had unions in the first place.

          Union struggles have always been mixed with violence, for the same reason all struggle by oppressed people are, because they are being oppressed by violence.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:59:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That last section should read (0+ / 0-)

            No, but "He is injuring me" most certainly is.  And despite the fact that people want to pretend that government passed laws are not to be resisted, if we all thought that we'd never have had unions in the first place.

            Union struggles have always been mixed with violence, for the same reason all struggle by oppressed people are, because they are being oppressed by violence.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:09:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I draw the line at violence (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, nextstep, Darmok

              Resisting laws is fine, as long as the resistance is through speech, and the democratic process.  Resistance of laws  through violence is not ok.  

              Union struggles have always been mixed with violence, for the same reason all struggle by oppressed people are, because they are being oppressed by violence.
              Really?  So you are condoning using violence -- against people or property -- in response to really obnoxious protected free speech?  
        •  If someone knocks you (4+ / 0-)

          to the ground, you damn well do have the right to get up and punch them.

          •  Two points (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            There are two different acts here.  

            First there is no justification -- none - for the attempts to take down the AFP tent.  The prior diary (linked in this one) has a report from someone who as there who explained that the union supporters clearly were trying to take down the AFP tent.  And the video clearly shows that they were, whether AFP ultimately helped it finally collapse or not.  

            Second, if Crowder intentionally pushed the man down, I agree with you.  That would be self-defense.  We don't know whether Crowder did or not.  If Crowder did not intentionally push him to the ground -- if it was someone else or if he was unintentionally knocked to the ground by someone -- that punch is not justified as self-defense.  

            It is unclear from the video.  The man who punched Crowder is on the ground.  That much is clear.  Whether Crowder had anything to do with that -- intentionally or unintentionally -- is not as clear.  

            •  Incorrect (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aquarius40

              The post I linked is from a union member who watched an AFP guy loosening the straps on one of the tents just before it went down.

              There were TWO tents. I wouldn't be surprised if union guys took that one down and I wouldn't condone or cheer it either.

              "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
              -- Dr. Peter Venkman


              Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

              by Eclectablog on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:32:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  From the comments to your own diary yesterday (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep
                I just got home from Lansing -- served as a marshal, trying to keep everybody safe, and keep the piece. Now, I have a lot to say about the AFP loudmouths who were trying to bait some on our side. But they succeeded in their aim, and regrettably, we marshals were unable to stop union members from pulling the tent down. I was right there, trying to stop it and saw it happen.

                About 20 min. later, one of the AFP folks was refused to leave in spite of being surrounded, and had his cell phone knocked out of his hand and stolen. He finally decided to leave, and Fr. Peter Dougherty and the MI Peace Team, along with me and half a dozen other marshals, escorted him away from the Capitol. We succeeded inkeeping him safe.

                Mark E. Miller / Kalamazoo Township Trustee / MI 6th District Democratic Chair

                and further:  
                Having now listened to the video, I want to say that it is possible that both Duckworth's story and mine are true; that is, this guy may very well have helped the tent collapse from the inside, because it served his purpose in making them look like victims, while at the same time union members were pushing on it from the outside.

                He and I saw this from different angles, and saw different things. I had seen the guy he speaks about with the NRA cap previously, but not at that time.

                Still, there is no doubt that our side was trying to collapse the tent, was involved in physical altercations with AFP folks immediately before it came down, and cheered when it came down

                Mark E. Miller / Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

            •  Yes, it's (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT

              Definitely unclear, because it was edited out. Why was it edited out?

        •  You are assuming the AFP version is the truth. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Aquarius40

          What you ought to have said is they "had a legal right to do what they" CLAIM they did.  If the video edited out just before those punches were thrown show Crowder shoving that guy to the ground, then no - he didn't have the legal right to do that but the guy did have justification for his reaction.

          And there was one party there who had every right to take down AFP's tent - AFP themselves.  You ignore the counter narrative that that's exactly what happened, instead automatically accepting the story they tell with their very choppily edited video.

          Your bias is showing yet again.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:10:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your factual error (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darmok

            I am not assuming anything about Crowder other than what we know -- that he was in people's faces in an obnoxious way.  We don't know if he shoved someone to the ground -- if he did, the person he shoved had a right to act in self-defense, as I said above.  But I've seen no evidence that Crowder shoved anybody to the ground.  I've seen a video that makes clear the guy was on the ground, but not clear how he got there or who had anything to do with it.  

            As for the tent, your version of the "counter-narrative" is not correct.  Clearly the union protesters were trying to take down the tent.  It may well have been that after they made attempts to bring down the tent, then AFP essentially took it down the rest of the way.  to the extent you imply that it was just AFP who did it, and they tried to frame protesters, and the union protesters DIDN'T take down that tent, you are wrong.  

            See the comments to electablog's diary of yesterday  from someone who was actually there:  

            I just got home from Lansing -- served as a marshal, trying to keep everybody safe, and keep the piece. Now, I have a lot to say about the AFP loudmouths who were trying to bait some on our side. But they succeeded in their aim, and regrettably, we marshals were unable to stop union members from pulling the tent down. I was right there, trying to stop it and saw it happen.

            About 20 min. later, one of the AFP folks was refused to leave in spite of being surrounded, and had his cell phone knocked out of his hand and stolen. He finally decided to leave, and Fr. Peter Dougherty and the MI Peace Team, along with me and half a dozen other marshals, escorted him away from the Capitol. We succeeded inkeeping him safe.

            Mark E. Miller / Kalamazoo Township Trustee / MI 6th District Democratic Chair

            and further:  
            Having now listened to the video, I want to say that it is possible that both Duckworth's story and mine are true; that is, this guy may very well have helped the tent collapse from the inside, because it served his purpose in making them look like victims, while at the same time union members were pushing on it from the outside.

            He and I saw this from different angles, and saw different things. I had seen the guy he speaks about with the NRA cap previously, but not at that time.

            Still, there is no doubt that our side was trying to collapse the tent, was involved in physical altercations with AFP folks immediately before it came down, and cheered when it came down

            Mark E. Miller / Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

            •  And edited video (0+ / 0-)

              And note that Crowder says something about punching right before the guy takes a swing at him in the video.  I trust these fuckers about as far as I can throw them.  He went there with an intent to get someone to take a swing at him, and he succeeded.  Boo-hoo.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:51:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So you admit you don't know what happened ... (0+ / 0-)

              yet you state definitively that " AFP and Crowder had a legal right to do what they did."

              Are you listening to yourself?

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  With the tent (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Darmok

                yes, I'm absolutely right.  AFP had a legal right to do what they did.  In fact, in other comments, it appears that the tent was permitted.  So, yes, AFP had every legal right to do what it did.

                With respect to Crowder, I don't have any evidence that he did anything illegal.  I don't have any evidence that he intentionally pushed the guy down or even that he had anything to do with the guy being down.  With respect to Crowder, I'm assuming that he did what we know that he did, what we can see on the film -- be really obnoxious in a highly charged situation.  And  he had every legal right to do that.  

                If I learn that he did something ELSE, then my opinion on Crowder (not the AFP) will change to accommodate that new information.  That's what thinking people do.  

                So, based on what we know now, yes, I'm comfortable with what I said.  

                •  You don't seem to be taking into account (0+ / 0-)

                  the fact that the video is obviously edited to remove any context or what Crowder might have done.  There would be no reason to do that if he had done nothing.

                  With respect to Crowder, I don't have any evidence that he did anything illegal.  I don't have any evidence that he intentionally pushed the guy down or even that he had anything to do with the guy being down.
                  And there's no chance you'll ever get that evidence because if it weren't damning to him it would have already been released.  What we do know is the guy that punched him was getting up and Crowder was saying something about punching.  What we know now is that Crowder and the people he's with don't want us to know what happen.  That signals to me that there is more than what we know.

                  The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:34:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that is speculation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Darmok

                    speculation is interesting, and often gratifying (especially when you are speculating that someone you dislike might have done something wrong.)

                    If Crowder intentionally knocked this guy down and this guy had to punch him in self defense, certainly the guy -- or someone who was around him (what about the person who stops him from hitting Crowder more?  Did he see what happened?) -- can come forward to say that.  That would be meaningful.  

                    •  This isn't a court of law, at all (0+ / 0-)

                      And you're speculating just as much as me.  You don't have evidence, you have an edited video.  You know that this video wouldn't be accepted as evidence in a court of law.

                      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:16:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, I'm relying on what we have in front of us (0+ / 0-)

                        that's different from speculating all the terrible things that someone might have done.

                        Crowder has been all over saying what happened.  Of course, that's exactly what he intended to do -- hope that the union supporters would be provoked into doing something wrong, and then gloating about their wrongdoing on TV and elsewhere.  Nonetheless, his word is also "evidence" of what happened as well.  He might well be lying, of course, but to come to the conclusion that he is lying, we'd have to have something -- like a statement from someone else who was there to see the punch -- to base that on.  

                        •  If they refuse to release the video (0+ / 0-)

                          and refuse to prosecute then I'm going to go with he's a liar.  This is a person who has explicitly cited people like Breitbart, who lies about this shit too.  He's a new O'Keefe.  All he has are lies.  If you want to take him at face value then you are welcome to your foolish decision.

                          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:40:47 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  So now you admit you are assuming (0+ / 0-)

                  the AFP represented version of facts is true:

                  With respect to Crowder, I'm assuming that he did what we know that he did, what we can see on the film -- be really obnoxious in a highly charged situation.
                  Which is exactly what I said you were doing and which you then vehemently denied.

                  I'd be more inclined to believe your protestations if this were not a longstanding pattern of behavior on your part.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:39:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, the film PLUS the (0+ / 0-)

                    statements of Mark E. Miller, Kalamazoo Township Trustee, MI 6th District Democratic Chair, posted yesterday and quoted in my other comments.  That's what I'm relying on for my comments about the tent.  See my comment "your factual error."  I quote and link to where he posted.  

        •  Let's talk ethics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          Let's talk intent.

          Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

          The agitprop from the AFP/Fox folks was a well planned, deliberate attempt to inflame and provoke the protestors.

          Yes some of the protestors responded in the way the right wingers wanted them to respond.  But the right wingers who went to the rally with a deliberate plan to disrupt protestors and incite violence are engaging in unethical behavior.  

          There's a big difference between engaging in bad behavior because you intend to do so and engaging in it as a result of provocation.

          So yeah, from the viewpoint of ethics - the AFP/Fox crowd are to blame.  They intentionally engaged in dishonest, violent behavior with the clear intent of stirring things up.

          Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

          by Betty Pinson on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:39:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  AFP and Crowder's bad ethics (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darmok

            do not justify violence to people (Crowder) (unless Crowder intentionally pushed the man down, in which case the man had a right to act in self defense).  

            AFP and Crowder's bad ethics do not justify violence to property, or as one of the marshalls there yesterday said (see my other comments for the link):

            just got home from Lansing -- served as a marshal, trying to keep everybody safe, and keep the piece. Now, I have a lot to say about the AFP loudmouths who were trying to bait some on our side. But they succeeded in their aim, and regrettably, we marshals were unable to stop union members from pulling the tent down. I was right there, trying to stop it and saw it happen.
            and
            Still, there is no doubt that our side was trying to collapse the tent, was involved in physical altercations with AFP folks immediately before it came down, and cheered when it came down
            There is no question that AFP and Crowder engaged in obnoxious, First-Amendment-protected behavior.  Protesters in a highly charged political protest on public grounds must expect obnoxious, First-Amendment-protected behavior from their opposition and are not allowed to respond to that obnoxious, First-Amendment protected behavior with violence against people or property.

            There is very little that I find more hateful or odious than the "protests" of the Westboro Baptist Church.  But even if the funeral that they "protested" was of some one in my family, if I responded to those by tearing down their signs, or by hitting one of them (unless I was acting in self-defense) I would be wrong, wrong, wrong.    It may be understandable from an emotional perspective that I did something like that, but I would not expect others to try to justify my behavior.

            That's how I feel about this situation.  In addition, the wrong behavior here gives fodder to those who want to portray the union in a negative light.  Rather than trying to justify that behavior, people here ought to simply say, "it was wrong, those people acted poorly.  I understand that they let their emotions get the better of them in the face of obnoxious behavior, but they should not have done that."  

            •  Sorry, but, ethically speaking (0+ / 0-)

              AFP/Fox are the bad guys here.  They acted deliberately and with malice.  

              The response by a small number of union guys (and some suspected outside agitators) was a natural reaction to being provoked.  Until we have all the facts and know all the players, I won't judge them.

              Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

              by Betty Pinson on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:17:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Eclectablog - didn't AFP have a permit (0+ / 0-)

        to set up their tents and have a rally in that space? If that is true, and the pro-labor rally invaded the space they had previously reserved using the permit process, it's a fact that should be in the discussion.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:21:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know if AFP did (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          The State Capitol website says that "Involve America" had reserved it. I wrote about this at Eclectablog:

          As more groups sign on to Tuesday’s Lansing rally, conservative groups reserve Capitol steps to thwart them

          However, conservative groups are determined to throw a monkey wrench into their plans. The Michigan Laborers District Council has reserved the Capitol East Steps and the North and South Lawns. That won’t be of much use, however, because the legislature is adjourned until Tuesday. Who has the steps and lawns reserved that day? The conservative front group Involve America.

          Who is Involve America? According to their website they are:

          [A]n organization that engages young adults (ages 18 to 25) in discussing how they are impacted by the ailing economy. We are a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) that works to involve young people in the political process by highlighting and seeking solutions to their immediate economic challenges, so that the next generation is not saddled with the consequences of decisions made by those before them.
          The fact that they are a 501(c)(4) organization is not a coincidence. This allows them to receive funding without having to disclose who the donors are. This group, which is clearly engaged in promoting tea party values in the same way as Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth, doesn’t reveal even a tiny glimpse of where they get their funding. But they clearly DO have funding. At a rally in at the University of New Hampshire, for example, they gave away “T-shirts, hats and raffle prizes”. They did the same thing at Iowa State University and, based on [a] photo from their Facebook page, they had a lot of swag to hand out. The photo can be seen at my site.]

          Interestingly they haven’t had any events or updated their Facebook page since a bit over a year ago. Now, suddenly, they’re having a rally at the state Capitol Building the very same day as a major labor protest rally and they have reserved the entire front of the Capitol for it.

          I'm sure they are just an AFP front group.

          "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
          -- Dr. Peter Venkman


          Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

          by Eclectablog on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:41:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So basically their goal was to limit the ability (0+ / 0-)

            of unions to protest by grabbing the permits first.  You don't need the steps and the lawn for 15 people, or however many it was.  It's a set up all around.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If someone gave a permit to AfP (0+ / 0-)

          to set up where they knew there was going to be union presence then that person is an idiot. Setting everything else aside, there's a reason that people who issue permits make sure that counter protests are reasonably separated, and the person in charge of that failed miserably in this case.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:45:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They and other conservative groups... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, Aquarius40, cap76

            ...reserved the lawn far in advance. They knew this was coming before the rally was even planned.

            "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
            -- Dr. Peter Venkman


            Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

            by Eclectablog on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:51:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In otherwords they planned on inciting violence (0+ / 0-)

              from the beginning.  Fuckwads.

              Any doubt I may have had is gone.  These people wanted to be attacked so they could pretend to play the victim.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:53:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Eclectablog - did the pro-labor groups (0+ / 0-)

              have any permits for any of the space around the capital buildings?

              If there a good diary or press report on what actions the police took at the demonstrations?

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:00:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (119)
  • Community (51)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • Economy (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site